However, courts must ensure that deaf or blind jurors are able to perceive the evidence presented at trial. Making the accommodations necessary to accomplish this may reduce judicial efficiency, but this problem does not justify excluding a significant number of citizens from participating in the judicial system. Courts have ruled that trial judges did not abuse judicial discretion by allowing physically or mentally impaired persons to serve as jurors. However, the statutes that qualify the deaf or blind to serve as jurors may determine the likelihood that the court will conduct a post-verdict hearing to examine the juror's competency. Instead of describing the necessary attributes of competent jurors, courts have generally listed the characteristics of the incompetent juror. Regardless of the approach used, the courts evaluate the individual's capabilities based on the tasks the person must perform as a juror. State legislatures have been more receptive to blind jurors than to deaf jurors because in a typical trial a substantial portion of the evidence is in the form of oral testimony. Six States give the blind the right to serve as jurors, whereas only one State by statute permits the deaf to serve as jurors. The court will not address the issue of juror competency unless the sensorially impaired person served as a juror over the objection of the appellant. Thus, if the trial judge has ruled that the sensorially impaired person is capable of serving as a juror without prejudice to the substantial rights of the challenging party, the appellant has the burden of proving incompetence. Footnotes which contain references are provided.