Maybe it's because I'm European, but trials by jury seem insane to me. Letting a bunch of random people decide my fate?

The O.J. Simpson case shows that one of the major points of disagreements between the prosecution and defense was the ratio of black-to-white people in the jury.

Why not just let multiple, high IQ judges decide it? Not that they are flawless.

If the judges are appointed --> trial by judge

If the judges are elected --> trial by jury

if guilty, trial by jury with a slick lawyer and hope for a hung jury or better

if innocent and getting railroaded, trial by judge and hope he/she can see through the police misconduct or whatever else they would be trying to trick a stupid jury into believing

A jury trial is generally better when the prosecution has a stronger case, bench trial better when defense has stronger case.


That being said, judges are people too, and they are not without their individual prejudices/biases/proclivities/etc.

Also, do not assume that somebody has a high IQ just because they are a judge.

(when I say better, I mean for the defendant)

Professional juries who have been trained to see through lawyer's tricks.

David, do you mean a jury of lawyers?

prosecutor's nightmare, imo


the state has the highest legal burden - proof beyond a reasonable doubt - as to each element of the crime

you don't want 6 or 12 lawyers in that room posing "reasonable" hypotheticals

And that has to include skepticism of the authority party - state's lawyers, police, etc.

The best argument for juries are cases where it's the law itself that's unjust and the best thing is to not apply it, or where the state has abused its power. Rare, but they do happen.

Jury nullification in practice is really really really rare.

But

You do if you believe 'reasonable doubt' is a standard we should be using for criminal proceedings.

most prosecutors ime make me wonder whether they do believe it

I'm not talking about nullification. I'm talking about the following situation (real example from real trial): cops stop some guy for no reason, search his car for no reason, find a bit of coke, on the stand cop lies through his teeth about having a reason to search the car, jury decides that even though the guy is obviously guilty the cops are lying pieces of **** who had no justification for the search and aquits. Never happens with a professional judge. Good outcome.

Umm I feel like a judge is way more likely to acquit than a jury in this scenario.

X1000000

There was almost certainly a suppression hearing before trial where the judge handled that issue, btw. It may well be that there were reasons for the stop/search that weren't relevant at trial and so were excluded, even if the search was lawful.

It's also possible the judge sucks and the evidence should have been excluded. It's really not an appropriate thing for the jury to be deciding though.

I think in this spot you're far better off with a jury than with a judge. Either way, as you mention, the judge is going to decide whether search was proper and evidence should be admitted. However, with a jury you get a second (although small) bite at the apple to convince the jury that you should go free because the cops were crooked. For the judge, assuming he lets the evidence in, that argument carries no legal weight (as it should with the jury, but you've still got a small shot with the jury that they ignore that).

Also, this is jury nullification. The jury would be voting to acquit even though they believe the defendant is guilty, they just don't think the cops had proper grounds to conduct the search (which as mentioned is a question for the judge, not jury).

Jury nullification is when a jury thinks a law isn't just and thus refuses to follow it. That's not what's happening here.

As for the rest of your post, I have to disagree. If you're banking on a jury being distrustful of police testimony, you're going to have a hard time as a defense attorney.

Even in a jury trial, the judge decides what evidence the jury can or cannot hear.

FWIW, lawyers generally do not subscribe to the view that judges are significantly more likely to reach the "correct" decision than juries are. Most trial lawyers have a healthy respect for juries.

The conventional wisdom is that if your case is complex and tedious to put on, you want a bench trial, and if your story is easy to explain, you want a jury. I guess that I agree with that conventional wisdom.

When I did criminal defense, I would never consider a bench trial. Might be different depending on the specific type of case (such as the recent police shooting cases).

Judges in my state are elected. Police organizations also have immense power. In most criminal cases, a judge saying not guilty is the same as saying that the cop is lying. Just doing that once would likely cause a concerted effort on the part of police to unseat the judge in the next election.

Furthermore, a lot of judges have a cynical "they are all guilty attitude" which may not work out in your favor.

I don't think bench trials are a good idea for the defendant more than 99%of the time.

^^^^^ good post

Trial by jury has some serious advantages.

1. A jury will not presume things against you like a judge will.

2. A jury will notice when the prosecution does offer evidence to prove each element as required. A judge will presume each unproven element was proven.

3. A trial by jury was designed to be representative of the community. If 1/12the of the community does not agree with a law or think the facts fit you will not be found guilty.

4. The jury is the missing fourth branch of government. The jury was designed to keep the government from going to far. The jury was designed to prevent judges corruption from hurting innocents.

5. A jury does not care if making this decision will prevent them from being promoted to a better judgeship later on. A judge could find you guilty because he figures that decision will put him on the short list for a future job in a higher court.

The jury will not use some really funky legal reasoning that judges use to determine that left means right, up means down, and right means wrong. This one aspect alone is why juries should be mandatory for every trial.

P.S. I got a traffic ticket. At trial the judge did not pay attention when under cross examination the deputy that wrote the ticket admitted that several elements required to be proven to obtain a valid conviction had not been proven by evidence introduced at trial. No matter how bad a jury might be I am positive they are better at applying the actual law than a judge is.

trial by combat and let the gods decide.

I have seen judges rule for defendants in bench trials and juries rule against defendants in bull**** cases.

It's hard to grasp "innocent until proven guilty" for most people who start with the presumption that the defendant ~"must be there for a reason", no matter how well they play the game during voir dire.

Cops and prosecutors aren't the only people who vote, and somehow judges find a way to rule for the suppression of evidence etc.


Don't get me wrong, juries are great in close cases or with sympathetic defendants, but ime judges are less likely to fill in the blanks themselves on a case that just isn't there.

Never fight a traffic ticket in front of a judge. They will presume everything based on no evidence provided for every element involved.

When you do not have a current registration how can you have a pickup truck?
A pickup truck can only exist with a registered weight that can only exist on a current registration.

How can you legally register a pickup truck or truck when you use it less than 50% of the time to carry property?

http://legislature.maine.gov/statute...9-Asec101.html

55. Pickup truck. "Pickup truck" means a truck with a registered gross vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds or less.

60-A. Registered weight. "Registered weight" means the gross vehicle weight specified on the vehicle's registration certificate.

88. Truck. "Truck" means a motor vehicle designed and used primarily to carry property. A truck may be used to tow trailers or semitrailers.


http://legislature.maine.gov/statute...9-Asec351.html
6. Improper registration. A traffic infraction for which a fine of not less than $200 nor more than $1,000 may be adjudged if the vehicle is not properly registered. For purposes of this subsection, "not properly registered" means the vehicle is either registered in a manner that is not reflective of its current actual use or as a type of vehicle that it is not as a matter of law, including, but not limited to, a motor vehicle registered as an antique auto when the vehicle is not an antique auto as defined in section 101, subsection 3.

A judge and all 7 justices refused to apply these unambiguous statutes as they are written. I would prefer a jury to a judge as judges feel free to ignore the actual law and violate your rights.