I don’t agree. I think asahi recognizes what I posted about - a growing trend where the police, DA and judge all focus on getting convictions and when you do that miscarriages of justice are bound to happen.
Aren’t the majority of legal cases decided this way already?
I understood that actual jury trials make up only a small percent of all the legal cases tried in our courts. Maybe not a panel of 3 Judges, but at least 1 trained, experienced Judge deciding. With appeals to a panel of 3 or more higher court Judges if desired.
Exactly; who would want an educated person deciding their fate??
Where are you from? Jury trials are a constitutional right that can’t be easily waved.
Sure, let’s abandon juries. Maybe then we can we can match the inspiring efficiency of Japan’s 99% conviction rate.
What? Jury trials are a constitutional right that can be easily waived, especially in the civil context. The Seventh Amendment does not apply to the states for civil purposes. Most states have their own constitutional provision for jury trials in civil cases, of course.
As it happens, though, bench trials (trials without a jury) are the exception rather than the norm. Even in civil cases bench trials make up only about a third of adjudications.
That is a feature of the adversarial trial system generally, not trial by jury. You’d have been taking those depositions if the case were heard by a judge too.
OK, got it. But the motion demanding a trial by jury was (if I understand the strategic part) designed to show we were serious.
Maybe that should be an incentive to something similar to the British Government’s “Crystal Clear Initiative”, the idea of which is that any document said government generates should be understandable by anybody who can read English.
Of course, the drawback might be thousands of unemployed lawyers…
Perhaps, though in the civil defense community we generally demand a trial by jury as a matter of course.
Filing a jury demand in a civil case is not a very powerful statement, it’s routine in almost all cases whether you are “serious” or not. It’s might even be considered malpractice in some situations to fail to timely file a demand.
Although it is true, most civil cases settle before trial, none of us are perfect at predicting which ones will and which ones won’t. If you want a jury, the best practice is to file a demand for one at the start of the case. (there are, of course, many cases where one party doesn’t want a jury. In most of those, the other side does.)
In 20 years or more of civil practice, I think I’ve done two or three non-jury trials.
It was actually more common in criminal cases, where the ugly allegations would often indicate we’d do better with a seasoned judge. Also, sometimes we were relying on a more technical defense, or merely creating a record for appeal after losing a suppression motion. (or perhaps, merely hoping an essential witness didn’t show up).
The jurors could be just as educated as the judges, and just as schmuck-like of not-schmuck-like as the judges, and the panel of judges would still be better. That’s because the judges know from experience the difference between a weak prosecution case and a strong one.
The greatest thing about trial by jury, in the United States, is that it is relatively cheap due to the jurors being paid very little. And it’s even cheaper than that because of there being, in most jurisdictions, prosecutors who shamelessly threaten defendants with draconian sentences should they exercise their supposed right to a trial. As a result, few trials actually take place.
By the way, in countries, like Germany, that use a panel of judges, some of the judges are often lay assessors so that you get a perspective from outside the legal profession taken into account.
If I was ever charged with a crime, and presuming I was, as I believe would be the case, innocent, I would hope to be in a democracy where I would be tried by a panel of experienced judges.