Why would a person choose a trial by judge over a trial by jury?

Question

What would be the advantage of opting for a trial by judge instead of a trial by jury. What is the main difference in our legal system. I have a friend that is facing this decision.

Answer 1

Often, it is used as strategy by lawyers.

When I worked at a criminal defense firm, we chose trial by judge because we knew the judge was often favorable to defense attornies. We also made the decision because we felt the jury would not like our client. They convict on those reasons alone.

Sometimes, a trial by judge is also chosen because they're more educated about the law than the average juror, it takes less time (picking a jury takes up a lot of time), or a crime is so heinous that the attorney feels the defendant might get a more fair sentence if it is in front of a judge only.

Your friend should consult with his or her attorney. The attorney should give your friend the pros/cons of each and what his or her experience recommends.

Answer 2

Trial By Judge

Answer 3

A judge might be less biased and level headed than a jury. You never know who you will get on a jury, but a judge certainly knows the law and how to apply it. I just had jury duty, and of the 3 trials they had that day, 1 was settled and 2 went to bench trial (that means only before the judge) so there must be an advantage. We were all dismissed.

Answer 4

If the matter is complicated, such as involving technical financial or scientific matters, a jury can be easily confused. Most judges are able (if willing) to see through smokescreens and get right to the point.

On the other hand, a jury has the power to ignore all of the facts, and acquit a person who is obviously guilty simply because they don't think that what they did should be illegal. This is called "jury nullification", and it's rare for a judge to do anything similar.

If it is a liability matter, judges are usually much more reasonable in the amount of damages awarded. Juries can be pretty outrageous sometimes.

Answer 5

The judge will rule on the case based on facts alone, where as a jury can be swayed. Remember, the judge is trained in law and will apply all principles to the case, where the jury is 12 untrained citizens that you merely have to convince to vote a certain way. Because of this, emotion can be played on a jury, where a judge will ignore it.

For example, if the defandent is a woman who is being charged with killing her husband she claims was abusive, chances are that she will play this case against the emotions of a jury.

The reverse can also be true however, people accused of anything involving children for example (abuse, neglect, other things worse, etc) often avoid the potential hostility and go with just the judge.

Answer 6

Sometimes people accused of a crime would rather have the emotional aspect removed from the trial. Often one side or the other will play on the emotions of a jury to influence their verdict. A judge will be much less likely to apply the law with undue emotion. Some even argue that if you are really innocent select a judge. If you are really guilty chose a jury.


.

Answer 7

Judges are more well versed in matters of law than your common american. They are also less likely to be bound by certain prejudices and have been through law school. Juries try matters of fact and matters of law. Judges also do both. But to appeal a case, you may only appeal a matter of law.


Appeal courts will maintain that the average american is capable of trying a matter of fact. I would prefer a judge trial over a jury trial any day, just because of personal experience with the ridiculous things juries can come up with in the deliberation room that have nothing to do with your case. (Fear of their insurance rates / taxes going up, etc)

Answer 8

There is NO advantage. The design of the New World Order is to place the power totally in the hands of government. Trials by Judge do just that. Trials by jury bring the citizens into government for the important decisions.

In short, your chances of meeting 12 crooked citizens are a lot less than meeting one crooked judge.

Even shorter, the NWO can never be a police state like they want if we do not give up or better put, FORCE THEM to fight us all for our Constitutional rights.

Ask any lawyer you know, that you are firends with (if you have those types of friends,) ask them if they know even ONE honest judge. I predict their response to be NO.

Trial by judge is just ONE MORE STEP to the destruction of the United States Consitution and the Bill of Rights. WAKE UP.

Answer 9

If you want to be tried solely on facts (for example if your lifestyle might turn off the average Joe and make them want to convict you just because) then you would want a bench trial. If you are hoping for sympathy from your fellow humans, then you would want a jury trial.

Answer 10

Its all about the money!

Its far cheaper to Bribe one person - the Judge - than what it is to try to bribe 12 people on the Jury!