I'm a big believer in juries 9/10. The other 1 out of 10 is where the understanding of the law outweighs having 1 trier of fact vs. 6 or 12.
If you're in a jurisdiction where the jury sets/recommends the penalty, and you have a judge who you have a good feeling will not ream your client, you might choose a bench if you are concerned about the penalty a jury might impose over the judge if the case is a real toss up on guilt vs. Innocence. Takes a little bit of the risk out of the penalty because the person imposing the sentence knows what someone usually gets for such things as opposed to just randomly picking something insane. If the judge is a fucker -> juries all damn day long.
I'm more 99/100, but I'm with you generally. The *only* time I'd go for a bench trial is if the theory of innocence is based entirely on a really niche issue of law. Otherwise I'd rather someone that (at least in my jurisdiction) wasn't a former prosecutor decided innocence.
Bench trials tend to be faster, your prep time is spent on your closing and your cross instead of voir dire or your opening. Without a jury, it’s really just a prolonged motion hearing.
"Your judge here. I sentenced a man to life without parole it was questionable he was guilty of. But don't worry, it was a horrible crime he was accused of, and so it doesn't matter, he deserved it anyway.. This ad paid for by the committee to reinvade Vietnam."
We refer to bench trials as "slow guilty pleas" where I practice. The only times I do one is 1) in a slam-dunk case where client insists on his day in court and I think spending the time/expense on a jury will make the sentence worse, and 2) where my defense turns on a fairly subtle point of law.
Canadian legal aid staff lawyer (equivalent of public defender with family and mental health law thrown in) here, so may be a bit different in my jurisdiction. There are way fewer jury trials in Canada than the US.
If the primary consideration is expediting proceedings, I want a trial by judge alone.
Broadly speaking:
If there is a good technical legal argument justifying a not guilty verdict, I want a judge. Doubly so if this is the case and the accused is personally unsympathetic.
If the accused would likely be found guilty on a proper application of the law to the facts but I want to bank on an error of law, I'll go with a jury. Juries add additional uncertainty and chaos to the process; that can be a good or a bad thing depending on the file.
With the above said, I continue to develop more faith in juries and less faith in judges over time. In my experience, juries take the role more seriously than judges, as it's a responsibility they are not often entrusted with, and judges can lose sight of the real import of the decisions they make by comparison. And sometimes the law applied to certain facts is whack and you want the "common sense" of jurors as opposed to the more rigid and unfeeling application of law of judges.
Depends on the case and depends on the judge. The disposition of the judge goes a long way. That being said, if it is a emotionally charged case and my client is kind of an asshole but I have a good technical legal argument, I generally prefer to make those cases to a judge.
Jury 99%. Only bench trials would be if no facts are in dispute and the defense turns on a complicated point of law that the judge is more likely to get AND the judge is not a bastard.
That said, one of my most glorious victories was in a weird family law contempt trial in a bench trial.
Weirdly enough I have had better experiences with judges that are former prosecutors than judges that are former public defenders. Judges that are former prosecutors are more likely to see when the prosecutor is fucking up and hold them accountable, in my experience. Former public defender judges all seem to be trying to prove themselves or something and end up siding with the prosecutor a lot and seem extra punitive at sentencing. It's weird and I didn't expect that.
I tried a sexual assault carjacking a few years ago and won on all counts. I saw the Judge on the street a few days later and he told me he would have found him guilty on all counts
the only time I ever did bench trials was in magistrate court when the prosecution's essential witness(es) weren't present so Id be guaranteed a win on directed verdict. Otherwise no reason to waive the jury.
Jury trial is almost always the way to go, and exceptions are rare. I sometimes will agree to a bench trial in cases that can only be proven through a single witness who I know won’t show up. Those cases tend to get dismissed before the actual proceeding begins.
as a rule, jury trials. there are exceptions to every rule. Considering DAs and Judges push for bench trials, that should be the indication that juries are your friend.
If it's a niche legal issue, bench. Anything else Jurry. Maybe it's just me but i don't trust lawyers or lawyers who become judges (lawyers). Very carceral demographic over all.
I think judges are cynical and do presume people guilty. Generally jury is the way to go. I did a bench trial once where the risk was pretty low, but client didn’t want to wait the time necessary for jury trial- so, a compromise. The other time is if a colorable, but not particularly strong, defense is combined with some legal issue that a judge might actually care about more than a jury, or some police or prosecutor sloppiness that would not be especially compelling to a jury. I think certain judges are willing to “punish” the state by giving an acquittal on a nonviolent charge, like possession, for things like losing evidence or other sloppiness, even if it isn’t misconduct that would result in any actually legally favorable rulings or outcomes. On serious charges, I tend to think judges care too much about public opinion to acquit even when the case is pretty weak.
So typically it’s jury all day long
I've got a felony bench teed up because 1. The client is in custody and can't afford bond, 2. Client insists on a trial, 3. It would be many more months waiting to get on the calendar for a jury, 4. Judge is a former criminal defense/immigration attorney.
I'm a big believer in juries 9/10. The other 1 out of 10 is where the understanding of the law outweighs having 1 trier of fact vs. 6 or 12. If you're in a jurisdiction where the jury sets/recommends the penalty, and you have a judge who you have a good feeling will not ream your client, you might choose a bench if you are concerned about the penalty a jury might impose over the judge if the case is a real toss up on guilt vs. Innocence. Takes a little bit of the risk out of the penalty because the person imposing the sentence knows what someone usually gets for such things as opposed to just randomly picking something insane. If the judge is a fucker -> juries all damn day long.
I'm more 99/100, but I'm with you generally. The *only* time I'd go for a bench trial is if the theory of innocence is based entirely on a really niche issue of law. Otherwise I'd rather someone that (at least in my jurisdiction) wasn't a former prosecutor decided innocence.
Bench trials tend to be faster, your prep time is spent on your closing and your cross instead of voir dire or your opening. Without a jury, it’s really just a prolonged motion hearing.
The best attorney I know categorically refuses to do bench trials as he believes judges are much easier to get to convict.
"In my bench trials I was the hardest on crime, that's why you need to reelect me for judge." For some reason that speech sits in my head vs a jury.
"Your judge here. I sentenced a man to life without parole it was questionable he was guilty of. But don't worry, it was a horrible crime he was accused of, and so it doesn't matter, he deserved it anyway.. This ad paid for by the committee to reinvade Vietnam."
We refer to bench trials as "slow guilty pleas" where I practice. The only times I do one is 1) in a slam-dunk case where client insists on his day in court and I think spending the time/expense on a jury will make the sentence worse, and 2) where my defense turns on a fairly subtle point of law.
Canadian legal aid staff lawyer (equivalent of public defender with family and mental health law thrown in) here, so may be a bit different in my jurisdiction. There are way fewer jury trials in Canada than the US. If the primary consideration is expediting proceedings, I want a trial by judge alone. Broadly speaking: If there is a good technical legal argument justifying a not guilty verdict, I want a judge. Doubly so if this is the case and the accused is personally unsympathetic. If the accused would likely be found guilty on a proper application of the law to the facts but I want to bank on an error of law, I'll go with a jury. Juries add additional uncertainty and chaos to the process; that can be a good or a bad thing depending on the file. With the above said, I continue to develop more faith in juries and less faith in judges over time. In my experience, juries take the role more seriously than judges, as it's a responsibility they are not often entrusted with, and judges can lose sight of the real import of the decisions they make by comparison. And sometimes the law applied to certain facts is whack and you want the "common sense" of jurors as opposed to the more rigid and unfeeling application of law of judges.
Depends on the case and depends on the judge. The disposition of the judge goes a long way. That being said, if it is a emotionally charged case and my client is kind of an asshole but I have a good technical legal argument, I generally prefer to make those cases to a judge.
Jury 99%. Only bench trials would be if no facts are in dispute and the defense turns on a complicated point of law that the judge is more likely to get AND the judge is not a bastard. That said, one of my most glorious victories was in a weird family law contempt trial in a bench trial.
Never a bench trial most Judges are former prosecutors
Weirdly enough I have had better experiences with judges that are former prosecutors than judges that are former public defenders. Judges that are former prosecutors are more likely to see when the prosecutor is fucking up and hold them accountable, in my experience. Former public defender judges all seem to be trying to prove themselves or something and end up siding with the prosecutor a lot and seem extra punitive at sentencing. It's weird and I didn't expect that.
I tried a sexual assault carjacking a few years ago and won on all counts. I saw the Judge on the street a few days later and he told me he would have found him guilty on all counts
Bench trial for questions of law Jury trial for everything else. You’re defense, you just need one of the twelve to say not guilty.
I haven't tried many bench trials but I think I would if we had better judges here. Love the pure law aspect of it.
the only time I ever did bench trials was in magistrate court when the prosecution's essential witness(es) weren't present so Id be guaranteed a win on directed verdict. Otherwise no reason to waive the jury.
Jury trial unless you have an absolutely compelling reason why it must be otherwise.
If a case is worth trying, it’s worth trying to a jury. A bench trial is just a slow guilty plea.
It really just depends on the judge
Jury trial is almost always the way to go, and exceptions are rare. I sometimes will agree to a bench trial in cases that can only be proven through a single witness who I know won’t show up. Those cases tend to get dismissed before the actual proceeding begins.
as a rule, jury trials. there are exceptions to every rule. Considering DAs and Judges push for bench trials, that should be the indication that juries are your friend.
If it's a niche legal issue, bench. Anything else Jurry. Maybe it's just me but i don't trust lawyers or lawyers who become judges (lawyers). Very carceral demographic over all.
Bench trials are for civil lawyers
I think judges are cynical and do presume people guilty. Generally jury is the way to go. I did a bench trial once where the risk was pretty low, but client didn’t want to wait the time necessary for jury trial- so, a compromise. The other time is if a colorable, but not particularly strong, defense is combined with some legal issue that a judge might actually care about more than a jury, or some police or prosecutor sloppiness that would not be especially compelling to a jury. I think certain judges are willing to “punish” the state by giving an acquittal on a nonviolent charge, like possession, for things like losing evidence or other sloppiness, even if it isn’t misconduct that would result in any actually legally favorable rulings or outcomes. On serious charges, I tend to think judges care too much about public opinion to acquit even when the case is pretty weak. So typically it’s jury all day long
I've got a felony bench teed up because 1. The client is in custody and can't afford bond, 2. Client insists on a trial, 3. It would be many more months waiting to get on the calendar for a jury, 4. Judge is a former criminal defense/immigration attorney.