ResearchPaperDraft_BThomas_CRJ552
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Kaplan University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
LS502
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
7
Uploaded by brittaneyt14
BENCH OR JURY TRIAL FOR A DEFENDANT
1
Bench or Jury Trial for a Defendant
Brittaney Thomas
Saint Leo University
CRJ 552: Criminal Advocacy & Judicial Proceedings
November 28, 2020
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL CASE
2
Abstract
In the United States, the court system consists of two different forms of trial. The trial on the
bench is the first form of trial before a judge. No jury is involved in this trial during the trial. The
judge shall find the facts and pass judgment on matters relating to law and procedure. In a jury
trial, the jury includes certain members of the society who find facts. The judgment of the jury is
based on the articulation of the evidence presented by the two parties. The role of the judge in
jury proceedings is to deal with legal and procedural matters. It is therefore always advisable for
a defendant to involve a litigant in making such a decision. The purpose of this paper is to
determine if an accused can choose a bank or jury trial.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL CASE
3
The Choice between Bench V. Jury Trial
A defendant can face either a bench or a jury trial during the criminal proceedings. In a
jury trial, the process consists of six to twelve people who are required to pass a verdict on the
basis of the evidence presented. In this case, the accused may be found guilty, convicted or
acquitted. In the jury's proceedings, for example, the judge has the duty to decide the person who
is eligible for a testimony, the nature of the testimony required, and the material evidence
provided. During the bench test, the same procedure is followed. The evidence is presented and
the judge determines whether the accused is guilty or innocent. However a jury trial is one of the
rights underlined in the Constitution of the United States. The problem or rather an issue that
vexed the legal system in the US is the defendant's right to determine whether his or her trial is
carried out by a jury or a bench. In 2015, for example, Dylan Roof was found guilty of killing
and sentenced to death nine African Americans in South Carolina (Lynch, 2016). Nevertheless,
advertising and hostility from members of the community, the accused requested or a jury
proceeding were involved in his case. However under federal regulations, the public prosecutors
can either agree to this request or reject it and have blocked the request promptly.
The public prosecutors' approach to waiving a jury trial is very tactical. This often
happens when it is certain that prosecutors will prevail when the case is handled by the jury.
They usually emphasize that they follow the legal procedure to pass a verdict. In fact, the
defendant is assured of an acquittal by appealing a jury trial. In this respect, the case law in the
American court system is supposed to support the accused rather than the government. In a
bench trial, however the judge has a constitutional mandate to determine the reliability and
integrity of evidence presented during the trial procedure as well as to provide guidelines for the
trial proceedings. A bench test is usually recommended if a speedy test in a legal issue is
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL CASE
4
required. Furthermore a bench test is time-conscious. In other words, the trial takes less time
because public prosecutors rarely undergo the selection of the jury or the procedure for
instructions. Bench trials are also somewhat less official than trials by the jury. In certain
sophisticated cases, a bench trial is considered effective that the jury may find incomprehensible.
However the failure of a bench trial is the probability of a personal partiality, as only one fact
finder exists.
But the government seems to support the current trend in the corridors of justice. Today,
the jury judges have consistently denied many defendants or rather, accused persons. So far
when the Constitution requires the government to allow the jury, public prosecutors quickly
require a jury if certain individuals are called upon by a judge for a trial. As a result, a show in
the Court system is very clear that prosecutors often impose trials on an accused who requests a
jury trial and vice versa. If the defendant were allowed to take individual decisions, such forms
of action and tactics in the court system would cease to exist. Prosecutors should be indifferent to
the procedure of trial as they usually have the necessary evidence for conviction. In fact, the
political environment should be conducive to restricting criminal justice. That said the legislation
should modify the federal regulations and allow accused to choose a bench or jury trial (Dann &
Logan III, 1995).
The defendant in this case Singer v. the United States, 380 U.S.24 (1965), invoked
Mortimer Singer to the Supreme Court to recognize the absolute right of trials by a bench
(Fieldman, 1984). The defendant submitted a jury trial for the benefit of petitioners or accused
persons, and every person should be permitted to accept or refuse such a benefit. The Supreme
Court held that the only right of the defendant is a fair trial by jury. But the defendant is entitled
to waive his/her right in the Patton v. United States case. Singer's argument was strong in his
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL CASE
5
submissions. The purpose of the Charter of Rights is to protect people from the presumptuous
government. The Constitution ensures that the trial process is speedy. However it would be
unjustified to arrest a person and begin the trial without allowing the legal defense to prepare.
However if the defendant requires a speedy trial process, the Constitution has guaranteed the
defendant that right. However if the accused person requests a delayed trial, it should also be
guaranteed in the Constitution. In addition, the Constitution provides legal representatives with
assistance, but the defendant may represent himself or herself.
It is a disappointment that the Supreme Court has not allowed the defendants to give up
their right to a trial by jury. The court's stubbornness to deny the accused the right of a judge to a
trial is incomprehensible, because there is no legal justification. The general impact on the court
system is therefore limited. First, most cases are resolved by the courts through plea negotiations
and not trials (McCoy, 2005). Second, a jury trial often requires an undivided vote, and the
Prosecutor should therefore demonstrate without reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty
(Chuang, 2006). For the trial, only one judge must be persuaded by the prosecutor. Therefore an
accused may plead for a jury trial.
In addition, the defendant may require a bench trial in situations. For example, a case
with a high media coverage may be jeopardized, particularly when some jurors demonstrate
partial opinions in advance of the trial. Some of the jurors may not tolerate public incitement and
pressure and thus make a compromise judgment. In cases that involve criminal acts or that
involve legal issues, such as tax fraud, the judge may have to hear how to prepare the tax return
before the verdict is passed. In situations where an accuser pleads to present his or her testimony,
the prosecutors may refuse to accept it especially if the accused has records of his or her arrest.
The jurors could pronounce a partial verdict on such minor issues. As regards the evidence
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL CASE
6
conventions, the Constitution allows the Public Prosecutor to use previous criminal records for
cross-examination of the accused. While past records may fail to determine whether or not the
defendant has committed recent offenses, they may influence the views of some jurors
(Shumanm & Champagne, 1997). Since judges deal with all kinds of cases, the past criminal
records would have difficulty determining their verdict. Nevertheless for example, some State
courts have allowed Maryland to grant the defendant the right to a bench trial. In 2016, in
particular, a police officer sued for killing Freddie Gray, rather than a jury trial (Bidgood, 2016).
In most states an accused is assured of a jury trial if his/her case is more than six months in
prison. In the case of a minor offense, which is likely to impose a sentence of a minimum of one
month, the defendant has the right to a bench trial.
The Federal Court gives the defendant the right to a jury trial for any offenses and
charges that may result in a possible prison sentence, such as small wrongdoings and offenses.
However in situations where a defendant is entitled to a jury trial, he/she may apply for a bench
trial. The benefit of a jury trial is that the jury is not liable or accountable to any person on the
basis of the judgment. The jury trial has its negative aspects, however. For example, jury trials
take time and jurors may not follow the proper proceedings and pass judgments based on
sensations. As such, choosing a bench or jury trial is one of the toughest decisions a defendant
can face (Clermont & Eisenberg, 1991).
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL CASE
7
References
Bidgood, J. (2016).
Baltimore Judge, Not Jury, to Decide Freddie Gray Murder Case: The New
York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/us/baltimore-judge-not-jury-to-
decide-freddie-gray-murder-case.html
Chuang, C. S. (2006). Assigning the Burden of Proof in Contractual Jury Waiver Challenges:
How Valuable is Your Right to a Jury Trial. Emp. Rts. & Emp. Pol'y J., 10, 205.
Clermont, K. M., & Eisenberg, T. (1991). Trial by jury or judge: Transcending empiricism.
Cornell L. Rev., 77, 1124
Dann, B. M., & Logan III, G. (1995). Jury Reform: The Arizona Experience. Judicature, 79, 280
Fieldman, J. (1984). Singer v. United States and the Misapprehended Source of the
Nonconsensual Bench Trial. U. Chi. L. Rev., 51, 222
Lynch, T. (2016). The Right to Choose: Trial by Jury, or Judge.
https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2016/06/tim-lynch-trial-judge/
Kurland, A. H. (1992). Providing a Federal Criminal Defendant with a Unilateral Right to a
Bench Trial: A Renewed Call to Amend Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23 (a). UC
Davis L. Rev., 26, 309
Shuman, D. W., & Champagne, A. (1997). Removing the People from the Legal Process: The
Rhetoric and Research on Judicial Selection and Juries. Psychology, Public Policy, and
Law, 3(2-3), 242.
McCoy, C. (2005). Plea bargaining as coercion: The trial penalty and plea bargaining reform.
Crim. LQ, 50, 67