Trial by judge or jury? which is better?

Question

My husband got a ticket when a woman pulled out in front of him on an icy road..No way was he able to stop...he skidded when he applied the breaks. anyway, he hit in the back of her vehicle and recieved a ticket of failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident, they agreed that they wouldnt call the cops and exchanged information...she stated at that time she didnt have insurance. When he got to work he got a phone call from the cops stating he needed to come in and fill out an accident report. They took her statement earlier and took her side of everything. My husband called her and asked her why she called them she said that her Insurence co. told her she had to file a claim. So should he do a trial by judge or jury?

Answer 1

I want to answer this question but I would like to point out a couple things first,...you stated your husband got a ticket but they agreed not to call the police...how did he get the ticket? if she reported it later and he gave a statement and they issued a ticket on her word against his at that point I don't see how they could give him a ticket not being at the scene or observing the accident sight...second you stated she said she didn't have any insurance and now after she made a report she has insurance?....first thing your husband needs to do is sit down and write down everything he can remeber about the incedent. time of day, weather cond., who seen the accident, were it happened, ect. everything he can remember about the accident, everything she said, then if you want to go to court ask for a jury trial, it will not be 12 people probably more like 6 in any case the stronger you make your case with facts the more likely you will win......hope this helps.

Answer 2

This is not a criminal case. This is a simple car accident, so the only court that will see it is a civil court (determined by a judge)

this is why you need to the call cops ALL the time, because now its "he said/she said".



tell your husband that he can let his insurance company know that a claim has been made against him; go to the scene of the accident and take numerous photos, showing exactly where she was, how she pulled out (im assumning this was from a side street or driveway or from a parallet parking space).

It probably wont go to a trial if your husband's insuracne company decides to settle.

Answer 3

A criminal and his lawyer can go before a judge and file a request for a plea deal or pretrial diversion. That is usually when the criminal knows there is sufficient evidence to convict him in a trial by jury; he neither admits nor denies his guilt. If he makes a plea agreement, he stands a better chance of serving less time in jail. Some first time criminals ask for pretrial diversion in order to get the crime expunged from their record if they stay out of trouble for a certain period of time which is assessed by the judge. Regardless of whether it's a plea agreement or a trial by jury, the judge always presides over the case.

Answer 4

NEITHER, Your husband needs to call his insurance company and tell them the situation, they will get a copy of the statement he filled out at the police department, as well as a copy of hers. An adjuster from your husbands insurance co will go look at the cars and get in contact with both parties. It's usually pretty clear from an adjuster view who is at fault , by the damage on the vehicles. If they think she is at fault and her adjuster thinks you were at fault the insurance companies attorney's will fight it out, that why you have insurance.. Of course if she's at fault she will pay for your vehicle and vice versa .. Now if you don't have insurance. You will have to appear in court, or just pay the ticket and take a chance on losing your license, for not having liability insurance ( which is a state law ).. I would in that case go to court, with a cheap attorney or represent yourself , state the facts, and face the music so to speak, a trial by jury is costly, So I think if you didn't have insurance and were also at fault or are told you are at fault , a trial by judge will be just fine , because you are already guilty of not having insurance in the first place..
good luck

Answer 5

Jury.
A jury has power to decide on facts and the law, whereas a
judge will only rule on the facts and typically will not question
the law.
Granted most jurors are ignorant of the fact that they can completely disregard the instructions given by the court.
Although you can typically request certain things such as this be included in the jury instructions.

As the U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia has
acknowledged, that the jury has "...an unviewable and unreversible
power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given
by the trial judge." U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, 1139
(1972).

We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the
jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given
by the judge, and contrary to evidence. This is a power that must
exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal
cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of jurors to find the
basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under
which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent
circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any
reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the
power to acquit,, and the courts must abide by the decision. U.S.
v. Moylan, 417 F.2d, 1002, 1006(1969).

Accordingly, we declare that in any criminal prosecution,
whether under state law or for violation of a city ordinance, the
accused upon demand is entitled to a jury trial.
In extending the right to jury trial, we define the category
of "criminal" prosecutions as including any offense a direct
penalty for which may be incarceration in a jail or penal
institution. It also includes offenses which may result in the
loss of a valuable license, such as a driver's license or a license
to pursue a common calling, occupation or business. It possible
punishment, still connote criminal conduct in the traditional sense
of the term.
In this dawning of the Age of Aquarius it is not too must to
require that the right to jury trial shall be made available to
everyone on equal terms as the plain constitutional language
commands. Baker v. City of Fairbanks (1970), Alaska, 471 P.2d 386.

Answer 6

Personally, I would go with the judge. The lady involved in the accident has already lied once, no telling what she'll try and pull next - most judges have heard it all and won't be very impressed if she hires a smooth talking lawyer - and a smooth talking lawyer can definitely mesmerize a jury.
Because he ran into the back of her vehicle, as indicated in your question, and not broadside, it indicates she had time to pull out and start down the road - rather than just pulled out in front of your husband - he'll need all the help he can muster.

Answer 7

Not likely to get a trial by jury for traffic offence. Only applies to criminal offences. I'd be looking to ensure other driver was charged with driving without insurance or failing to produce proof of insurance. Trial by judge only is all you'll get in traffic court

Answer 8

there should be a trial by judge in your case. A jury might be bias because they dont know the laws that apply to your case. I would think a judge would be the most knowledgeable in this situation

Answer 9

Jury - you're taking your chances with 12 people rather than one.

Answer 10

Judge. Then you hang around for awhile.