Most people think “due process” means getting a lawyer and getting a day in court.

For disabled defendants, due process starts earlier than that: it starts with whether the person can meaningfully participate at all.

Accommodation is not optional

Court systems and prosecutors’ offices do not get to decide that disability accommodations are “nice to have.” If a defendant cannot hear proceedings, process information in real time, or navigate required filing systems because of disability, then the proceeding can become something worse than unfair: it becomes inaccessible.

In Marc Fishman’s case, disability is not background context—it is the mechanism through which the system allegedly failed him.

What Fishman says he needed

Fishman describes significant health and communication limitations, and says he required accommodations to effectively participate. Supporters also point to requests such as real-time transcription.

The practical problem: deadlines do not pause for disability

One of the most revealing aspects of Fishman’s record is procedural: emergency filings require speed, portal access, correct docketing, and strict service rules.

In September 2025, communications around an emergency stay show intense time pressure and repeated references to inability to navigate the electronic portal due to disability, while counsel was tied up in trial and trying to obtain a docket number to upload papers.

This is how disability turns into incarceration risk in real life:

• Not because “the court hates disabled people,”
• but because the system is built for the non-disabled default,
• and it treats barriers as excuses instead of as access failures that must be fixed.

A related credibility issue: the case’s key officer later receives an official misconduct finding

Separate from accommodations, Fishman’s case also involves credibility risk: the arresting officer was the subject of an AG findings letter concluding a pattern of misconduct involving abuse of authority.

That matters because even a perfectly accommodated defendant still needs a fair adjudication of the evidence. Fishman’s supporters argue he got neither: barriers to participation plus a prosecution built on compromised credibility and allegedly withheld exculpatory material.

What a fair system would do

A fair system doesn’t “sympathize.” It operationalizes access:

• fast, documented accommodation decisions,
• workable alternatives to portals and rigid formats,
• and zero tolerance for treating disability barriers as noncompliance.

Whether Fishman ultimately wins his appeal, the underlying lesson stands: when the justice system makes participation conditional on abilities a defendant does not have, it is no longer testing guilt. It is testing endurance.