"trial by jury" vs "trail by Judge"

Post Reply New Topic

Poland legal system is based on Napoleonic like tribunal, we have panel of judges who conduct trail. This type of judicial system is dominant on the European continent. I Wonder does British Commonwealth and US is better than "Try by Judge", because politician has less control, people have more control, and most of all it has more drama

Trial by jury comes (more or less) from Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, and incorpated into (mainly) the US legal system. Bench Trials ("Trial by Judge(s)") are closer to the days when all justice was performed by the Nobles/Lords/Privy Council/King, and they appointed judges.

Like so many other things of this nature, so much comes down to which country borrowed what ideas from which other country. The US took UK 1776-law wholesale, and worked from there. To use what is probably the best recent example of a country that actually made a choice between different systems, the Israelis took the legal system from the British Mandate that they had just thrown out of the country, and grafted a few additional elements in (most notably the willingness to use a dual Supreme Court/Super-trial court).

I only can tell my impressions about how the US system is presented in media, but being forced to be a "people judge", unable to go to work, have contact with others etc.. definitly would suck. So we do have jurys, but they are not forced to stay away from publicy and so on, as far as I know. Its alos more a shared system, so its always a jury and judges, if they agree everything is fine, while if they dont agree with each other (because the judges think the jury doesnt understand the case or the jury thinks the judges would be corrupt or whatever) the file goes up to the instance above.

Generally, in the U.S., for criminal trials the prosecution would favor trial by judge, and the defense will favor trial by jury. Most trials end up being trial by jury, because this is the right of both sides to have, so they both must waive the right for there to be a trial by judge. The defense would favor a trial by jury because for a jury to convict (or to acquit), they must do so unanimously. If they can't reach a unanimous decision (known as a hung jury), the defendant can be re-tried, but hung juries are generally considered to be victories (although only partial) for the defense. So this places a higher burden on the prosecution, to convince all 12 jurors. Also, the defense will often try to play to the passions, sympathies douts etc. of the jurors, or will hope the jurors cannot follow the logic of the prosecution's case to convict. Since jurors come from all parts of society, some people educated, some not, some with axes to grind, etc., the odds are much more favorable to the defense than if they were to rely on the judge, who is generally a trained lawyer with a lot of experience - highly intelligent and not nearly as subject to the types of emotional arguments and/or attempts to raise minor doubts about the person's guilt that the defense likes to use.

Last edited by ScrewyWabbit on 26 Apr 2013, 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

The media does a poor job presenting things. Most of the trials seen on TV are from California....and you only see the screwed up cases.

Juries arn't required in most cases. I've been called to jury selection twice, and both times the trials reached a settlement/plea bargain before they started the "How to be a juror" video. The thought of having 12 citizens look at a case has a way of finalizing a decision.

By many measures, the US has a robust judical/legal system, particularly the Federal judiciary. Some State legal systems are embarrissing, and some are quite good.

We have bench trials down here for small stuff. That's a trial in front of a judge and no jury. Now, when I had to go to court for that too many parent notes thing from the No Child Left Behind Act a few years ago and the judge set it for a bench trial I was so sad over that. I'll tell you why, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with jurisprudence.

Did you ever see the movie "To Kill A Mokingbird"? Well that courtroom looks exactly like ours except ours is bigger. It's in the old courthouse and has all that old stuff in it and I honestly just wanted to watch my lawyer, who was not Gregory Peck but had his own flair for the dramatic and a tiny bit of pretention and an avowed passion for theater, talk to the jury about why my four extra notes for chicken pox should be upheld and not cause me a fine, and he would do it just like he was defending Boo Radly!

I asked Judge Bobby if I could have a jury trial and he looked at me like I had gone totally insane and said "Why?" I told him it's not cause I don't trust him, it's really just cause, well, "To Kill A Mokingbird", look around here in this courtroom and I'll hopefully never have another chance to sit at a defendants table. He told me he understood completely, I would have to make do with a bench trial but I should come and watch a real trial when we had one because they are almost always open to the public. He said sometimes if you squint, it's sorta like that and he thinks of the movie too.

Here in Europe, most countries have a legal system in which court cases are decided by a panel of professional judges. In my view, the Anglo-Saxon judicial system is better, because the social factor is more important besides the professional judge is more likely to influenced by politicians.

In the U.S. the defendant has the right to waive trial by jury and be tried only by the judge.

ruveyn

In Canada, summary trials are before a provincial judge and indictment trials are before a jury. Many offences in the Criminal Code are hybrid offences allowing the Crown to choose what kind of trial it shall be. Summary trials have a prison time limit and defendents usually have no access to legal aid, public defender of any of that. Also, there is not the requirement of prima facia evidence for the trial to proceed. Often therefore the choice is made to go summary to browbeat people into a criminal record, often with evidence that would cause dismissal in an indictment case.

There are two separate decisions that take place in any legal proceeding: the trial of fact (what actually too place) and the trial of law (what does the lat say about what actually took place).

In the Common Law system, Judges are always the triers of law, and their decisions are subject to appeal where higher courts may freely substitute their own decisions for those of the trial judge. Juries, when they are empanelled, or judges acting alone when juries are not empanelled, are the "triers of fact." Their findings are much more protected from interference by a higher court. A higher court can find that a finding of fact is, for example, patently unreasonable, but it cannot substitute its own opinion, it must resolve the matter absent the finding of fact, or send the matter back for a new trial.

Juries are supremely good at assessing credibility. Where factual matters come down to which witness' version of events you believe, juries are very good at getting it right. There are, however, many pitfalls. Trials that turn on large amounts of technical evidence can be problematic. In many cases of wrongful conviction, juries have been persuaded by scientific evidence that turns out to have been tainted, or even fabricated. Juries tend to trust experts, unless the are presented with disagreement between experts. Juries can also attempt to take the law into their hands, as well. In jurisdictions where civil juries can make damage awards, there have been cases of outrageous awards (most of which have been significantly rationalized on appeal).

One of the most interesting challenges is that of "jury nullification." This is the practice where a jury refuses to convict in the face of the law and the evidence for some extralegal reason. I share the view of many that this is actually a positive aspect of juries, presenting a check on the power of government. That view is not universally held, however.

Inquisitorial systems, on the other hand, present different strengths. Trials in inquisitorial systems tend to be shorter and more focussed, for one.

Limiting the power of government is not necessarily a bad thing, but jury nullification, when it happens, is horrible and not the way I want to see the power of the government be limited. The reason I feel this way is that I think the law should be applied evenly and consistently. But when jury nullification happens, it means that the law has been selectively ignored and not applied in specific instances. This undermines the purpose of having laws in the first place. The proper way to limit the power of the government is to restrict its power through the Constitution or amendments to the Constitution.

I, too, think the idea of jury nullification is important. By having a jury of peers, citizens present a check on the powers of the government. Unfortunately, many jurors are sheep whom just go along with the government narrative.

Jury nullification is underused in my opinion. There are so many unjust laws, so many overzealous prosecutors. New Hampshire recently made it legal for the defense to inform juries about jury nullification, I hope this becomes a trend all over the country. Sometimes citizens have to take matters in their own hands against such a corrupt and tyrannical government be it fugitive slaves, alcohol prohibition, the war on drugs, or whatever.

Study the trial of John Peter Zenger sometimes. he was tried for libel and sedition under British Law. The Jury decided to acquit Zenger on the grounds that the Crown had no right to stifle his right to publish. This was a predecessor to the U.S Constitution First Amendment. Jury Nullification in that case was absolutely right.

ruveyn

I've heard of federal drug cases, where jury wanted to use jury nullification, and the judge threatened contempt of court charges for the jurors.

Anyway, I feel it mostly doesn't matter. In theory, I think the US Constitutional law system is the best. In practice, our incredibly high incarceration rate, and rather high conviction rate tells a different story than our actual laws do. In real life in USA, only 5% of felony convictions are the result of jury trials. So everyone, regardless of guilt or innocence, when you go to court, you either, A, get your charges dropped, B, get offered a plea bargain, or sometimes combination of A and B. A is for if the judge/prosecutor thinks you're not guilty. A+B combo if they think you're sorta OK of a guy (ie, charges dropped if you go to anger management or something.) Generally the job of a defense attorney isn't to actually be a real lawyer and argue law. The job of a defense attorney is just to sit with the prosecutor at lunch and play "let's make a deal" and figure out a cool plea bargain for you. This especially applies for public defenders. Actual trials usually only happen for murder or other very serious crimes, where the plea bargain is like 20 years in jail instead of "oh well, if you plea out you'll get 6 months in jail" like most criminal cases.

In USA, especially for non Class A felonies, nobody ever really goes to trial. However, as far as I know, most states you can still push for one, even for misdemeanors actually. But the "waste of resources" thing comes into play. A trial for a misdemeanor pretty much will take the same resources as a trial for a murder or rape or something, thus why prosecutors/judges don't really like it. HOWEVER, prosecutors and judges still want to "win." I know someone who was threatened with 6 months probation as a plea deal for a small misdemeanor charge. He insisted upon going to a jury trial, which he had every right to do. After over a year of going to court and rejecting plea offers, they finally gave him a "deal you can't refuse" which was some weird arrangement of a single day of probation, and no permanent record. Basically a dropped charge where the prosecutor still "wins."

The problem in the United States, in my opinion, is the lack of grand juries. Most states have no grand juries anymore. So basically, public prosecutor wants to bring every case to trial, as it'll benefit him. Whereas the grand jury is supposed to be the check and balance to prevent what we have now, very overloaded courts. The problem we have now is, courts are overloaded, and nothing can really be brought to trial because they're so overloaded. Even with like 90+% cases NOT going to trial, it takes like 3 years to get a jury trial for murder, for example. So a jury trial for a drug charge, just doesn't tend to happen. It'd be a waste of court resources, for of course everyone BUT the defendant whose life is on the line.

With this in mind, I don't know. I think a jury is best I guess, as it provides a check and balance. But I think the problem in the United States is, because of the right of jury trials, courts simply just get clogged like hell because of the lack of grand juries. So if there's no grand jury, I guess in some (somewhat twisted) sense, a 3 judge panel or something would be better, as more cases would go to trial. Mind you, it'd be a trial somewhat slanted toward the prosecution (as judges tend to be), and of only 3 people instead of 6 or 12. If the legal system is going to "evolve" I guess this would be a direction to go unless grand juries are brought back. I'd think even a single judge would even be better in some instances than what we have now. What we have now, is basically prosecutors getting to be the prosecutor, judge, and jury.

So yeah, I wish I could answer more in a simple "yes or no" kind of manner, but things aren't quite so simple.

This doesn't quite mesh with the way I've understood grand juries to work - mainly in the sense that as I understand it, to get a grand jury to return an endictment is not really any different in terms of what the prosecution must demonstrate than what it would have to do at a preliminary hearing before a judge - really basically that a) a crime has been committed and that b) the prosecution has at least some evidence that, on the face of it, indicates that there's a possibility that the accused committed that crime. In other words, its a pretty low bar for the prosecution to cross. I don't think there are many instances where a prosecutor tries to proceed with a case that such a low threshold can not be achieved, so I don't think really that the lack of grand juries is somehow allowing more cases to go to trial. If anything, its just tying up judges who now have to conduct preliminary hearings in addition to trials.