Why aren't there more bench trials? Or, is our justice system based on deception and stupidity?

Great Debates
1

I read the wiki on bench trials, which up until now, I just called judge trials, meaning a trial without a jury, sorta like what you’d see on The People’s Court.

The wiki told me a few interesting things, which is that bench trials are the default for civil cases, and jury trials are the default for criminal cases, but in either one, a person has the right to get the other type of trial by meeting some criteria.

There’s 2 ongoing threads now, one where a poster asks why we have a jury, and another thread where the question is posed if juries should be notified of mandatory sentencing laws for the case they are on. In both threads, it seems like we all agree on a few basic principles, among them that juries can use their power for fairness or unfairness, but this is preferable to politically appointed judges, or the “common man” argument (the average person would render a better verdict than people trained in law)

What the wiki and the threads don’t really mention is why have almost no one ever in a criminal case opted for the bench trial instead of a jury trial? Surely there are plenty of cases where evidence leans enough towards the defendant that a speedier, more simplified bench trial would be preferable. Does waiving your right to a jury make future appeals more difficult or something? It seems like with the amount of jury trials vs. bench trials, our whole system of justice is designed to fool at least 1 person in that jury to acquit, and it’s not altogether clear why a hung jury is that much better than a guilty one because the case keeps going on and on, and sometimes these guys are in jail for the duration of the trial

Do lawyers assume us that stupid? Why not take your chance before a judge if you feel that you’ve got the better case? I never see that, even on law shows I don’t see it! If I’m convinced of my innocent in some criminal matter, and I feel the case is strong (I know I know, IANAL), I think I would prefer a bench trial. Am I crazy?

Juries are many and capable of being swayed by pointless things, thus the necessity sometimes of a judge to tell a jury to disregard some statement by a lawyer. It seems that universally, such statements are said by the defendant to put some seed of doubt in the jury’s mind. A judge would be less susceptible to that tactic, forcing you to use better arguments. It would be like arguing a debate here on the Dope, or in an internet wasteland like Free Republic or 4chan

2

People working for the justice system often request bench trials. That should tell you something.

3

What is that supposed to tell me? :confused:

4

It’s based on deception and stupidity. And corrupt.

Juries exist so that people will believe that the justice is based on the law, and not the personal bias of people in power. The insiders prefer the personal bias of the people in power.

5

… right. Sure, Tripolar.

Sure.

There’s a better explanation. First, a bench trial is going to see slightly different standards in practice. Things will be more relaxed, and technical evidence will see more direct play - everyone is likely familiar with it. But at the same time, any emotional evidence or direct statements are likely less important and may well get nowehere. If I were a defendant, I’d certainly consider a bench trial, but I’d be VERY careful about which ones I’d put forward.

In other words, it’s not a random selection. And as it’s the defendant’s choice, they may expect the advantage.

Moreover, jury trials are a check on the bad use of government power over law, which has NOT been a trivial problem for most of civilized human history. And even if the governemnt doesn’t like to admit it, jury nullification is a real power, which limits their ability to criminalize acts.

6

Just maybe the people who work in the law business want to get the best outcome for the people who hire them to do the heavy lifting in trials. Maybe those people know through long and some times sad experience that judges tend to become jaded and have already heard every argument that could possibly be made.

In criminal matters maybe they know from long and some times sad experience that judges tend to be old prosecutors who know the police and have formed a pretty firm favorable opinion about the competence and credibility of the police in general and maybe particular police officers.

In civil matters maybe they know from long and some times sad experience that judges have had enough experience to have formed a firm opinion about the value of the injury that is being claimed.

Given all of that maybe a person accused of crime or seeking money damages would be well advised to seek a jury trial. Not because juries are stupid but rather because it is unlikely that jurors are jaded or have already formed general or specific judgment about the important parts of the defense or claim.

Of course there are some kinds of cases that have to be tried just to a judge – divorce, child custody, real estate ownership and foreclosures, for instance.

7

With a jury trial, there’s the possibility of a “hung jury” and retrial (and the additional possibility of the prosecution not proceeding with the second trial) - aka, a “second chance,” or a “learning experience” for the defense/defendant.

With a bench trial… well, the judge isn’t likely to say “Oh no! I’m so indecisive! Can we do this all over again?” "“F you. You’re guilty (or possibly not, but probably). Off to Leavenworth for 20 years for stealing your neighbors firewood,” is a more likely response.

8

Some possibilities:

  1. It’s unlikely that the police and the local prosecutor will put you on trial unless the evidence is enough to convict. Thus, your best bet is to try and make the evidence sound shaky (which is far easier with a jury) or make yourself seem likable and incapable of such a crime (which is only possible with a jury).

  2. Between the power of evidence or the power of evidence plus likability, you’re safer with the latter, regardless of which path you choose.

  3. The only person who could advise you of which path to choose has a financial incentive to advise you to go the long and costly route.

  4. The only person who could advise you of which path to choose, due to items #1 or #2, has likely never recommended that someone go for a bench trial, and thus might not even think of it when a case comes up that would actually benefit from a bench trial. “Tunnel Vision”

9

As I understand it, when a jurisdiction creates the possibility of a bench trial for criminal matters, there tends to be a flurry of interest at first, with a rush of defendants (particularly those charged with unpalatable offences like child molestation) wanting one.

Then the profession discovers that judges convict at a higher rate than juries, and the fashion dies away. This, I understand, was the experience in the UK (from what I have been told).

A real problem for a defendant is not so much that juries are stupider than judges, but that one judge sitting alone brings his biases to the table in a way that is not leavened by the presence of 11 other people, and those biases are likely known by those in the profession. Some judges are pro-prosecution (they would not express their views in those words, but that is the practical effect of things) and some are pro-defence. It is in the nature of things that you do not get to choose, and there are always systems in place to prevent “judge shopping”.

So opting for a bench trial can feel essentially like a coin flip. If you draw a pro-prosecution judge, you’re screwed, a pro-defence judge and you’re delirious with happiness. Many people aren’t happy with that sensation of a coin flip - they’d rather avoid the risk of getting a hanging judge, even if it means abandoning the possibility of getting a sympathetic one. And so they go for the sphinx-faced jury.

10

While I don’t doubt that judges lean in a particular direction as regards defense or prosecution, I’d want to see a cite that they’re anything near 100% in that direction or even more than 10% different from the ones who vote the other direction. I would expect that most cases still come down to the evidence. The judge’s leaning would only affect the ones which needed a tie breaker.

11

But this is incorrect. The great majority of criminal trials are bench trials.

This is because a landslide majority of criminal cases (60-80%) are done via plea bargains, and those are always bench trials. And pretty quick ones, too.

In addition, there are cases where a criminal defendant will choose a bench trial. Like if it’s a notorious case, where there has been a lot of publicity and the defendant feels that a jury pool is likely to be biased against him/her, or minorities who feel that the majority on the jury is biased, etc.

12

Well I did overstate that somewhat. The case for deception, stupidity, and corruption is much more complex, and arguable. I shouldn’t have entered something so much based on opinion here in GD.:o

13

Well, in a jury trial the prosceution has to convince 12 jurors (or some other number, by state) that you are guilty, whereas in a bench trial they only have to convince 1.

14

It’s not a trial if there’s a plea. All that stuff happens in pretrial hearings. (Unless you change your plea mid-trial.)

15

Give you an example of England and Wales.

You have a category of crimes called “either way offenses” which means that depending on the accused’s decision, it could be heard in the Magistrates Court (meaning with a bench of three magistrates) or in the Crown Court with a jury.

It is a established fact that Juries acquit more than Judges. Judges are less likely to believe the accused and more likely to believe the police. Look at it this way, as any criminal lawyer knows after a while you get regular and repeat customers. The Judge who has seen the same argument put forth for the 12th time by the same defendant and knows that a police officer is an honest upright professional, well who would you believe? A jury who sees the two for the first and only time is far more detached and will analyze it more properly. A judge’s preconceived notions although based on admittedly strong reasons can and have been shown in the past to lead to gross miscarriages of justice.

Many indeed most of the worst miscarriages of justice have not occurred to fine upstanding citizens who were pillars of the local community. They have occurred to people who were actually criminal, had had been in trouble before were less then savory characters. You gave a man accused of murder. He has lots of previous convictions for minor crimes. A judge who has seen people graduate from petty to major crimes on multiple occasions will be far less sympathetic than a group of laymen.

Finally going back to the either way offenses example given earlier. I am a Barrister. If I had a choice (and in either way offenses I do) I would always opt for a judges only trial if the evidence was mostly identification based, judges are loath to convict on that. Also when the DNA evidence is confusing, I might pause, judges will not make the leap as easily as juries do. But for most everything else, yeah gimme a jury trial.

16

But wouldn’t it still come down to the evidence, like **Sage Rat **mentioned? If you didn’t do it, then you didn’t do it?

This is probably my bias, but I have NEVER seen a case on the news where a criminal defendant is tried by a judge, ever. You’d think with some famous cases where the defendant already has some pretty rotten baggage, you’d see it. Even in OJ’s civil trial he opted for a jury even though much of the damaging stuff that the sequestered criminal trial jury didn’t get to see was played out over and over, including at least 1 fairly one-sided TV movie. You’d think his lawyers would have told him that getting acquitted the first time was one-in-a-million

Why doesn’t that go for the defendant as well? The lawyer has to convince 12 people his client’s innocent, as opposed to 1

17

Because it’s not the case. If even a single juror holds out, you cannot be convicted. You do not need to every juror to find you not guilty to stay out of jail, you simply need to not be found guilty.

18

You especially shouldn’t have posted it in GQ. However, since the OP seems to have put the question in GD terms from the start, it’s a reasonable mistake. Since that’s where it’s been headed, let’s move it there now.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

19

It’s a bit more complicated than that. Jury trials are the default for criminal cases, but the defendant doesn’t need to meet any criteria to waive trial by jury. If he wants a bench trial, he gets one (at least in the US).

If the plaintiff seeks monetary damages (or in one or two other scenarios) either party can request trial by jury. Same applies if the defendant seeks monetary damages via a counter-claim.

20

:smack: