That's exactly what I'm looking for...a case where the "observations" of the completely blind person were enough to sway a jury. Regardless of whether or not the blind person "saw" the crime being committed, they could still be a witness. S/He still has powers of observation (i.e. ability to identify the attacker's voice, screeching of tires, type of vehicle based on engine sounds, able to hear the scuffling and describe order of events based on sounds/voices, able to describe a person based on physical attributes such as their walk, how heavy they are, etc.) Given, they would only be able to testify to the limitations of their ability to observe.
The D.A. in Beverly Hills refused to take on a case where all the witnesses only HEARD what was happening, not actually saw. Since all the witnesses could clearly describe the events step by step and they all know who the guilty party is, one even being an expert on violence itself, I am curious as to see if I can present a case to the DA where the testimony of a person that cannot actually "see" the alleged crime being committed is still permissable and influential enough to sway a jury.
Thanks for the feedback.

