When and why are jury trials preferred to bench trials of criminal charges? A jury trial consists of a judge, who is the arbiter of law, and a jury, which is the &quot;fact-finder.&quot; A bench trial consists only of a judge, who determines questions of both law and fact to render a verdict. In the U.S. there are some hurdles to obtaining a bench trial in criminal cases. For example, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP 23a) criminal trials must be by jury unless the defendant, prosecutor, and judge all agree to a bench trial. Many states do, however, allow a criminal defendant to unilaterally opt for a bench trial. Disregarding any obstacles resulting from those rules of criminal procedure: When a criminal defendant has an option to choose between a jury or a bench trial, when and why does one opt for the latter vs. the former?
In the overwhelming majority of criminal trials for felonies, and a very large share of misdemeanor and traffic trials, criminal defendants, following the advise of their criminal defense attorneys – who have a good knowledge of the system – overwhelmingly choose jury trials. (Even though criminal defense attorneys may personally have reasons to prefer bench trials which take less preparation as criminal defense attorneys are usually spread very thin with many clients and limited resources.) This is primarily for one very good reason. A jury is six times more likely to acquit than a judge and, unlike a judge, can also deadlock (resulting in a mistrial followed by a retrial or more lenient plea bargain in most cases), if the facts are at all susceptible to more than one interpretation. Judges and juries agree on the verdict in roughly 78% of criminal jury trials where a verdict is entered, but judges are much less likely to acquit defendants than juries do, (3% v. 19%+) (see the sources cited in this previous Law.SE answer). The National Center for State Courts conducted a survey of hung jury rates using felony case data from all federal courts and 30 state courts in 75 of the most populous counties. The NCSC project found that state courts in large urban areas had an average hung jury rate of 6.2%, with substantial variation across courts, ranging from a low of 0.1% in Pierce County, Washington to a high of 14.8% in Los Angeles County, California. Federal hung jury rates were found to be particularly low, averaging about 2% of all federal jury trials: federal civil trials had lower rates than federal criminal trials. (Source.) On average a criminal defendant is eight times more likely to avoid a criminal conviction in a state court criminal case in a trial before a jury than in a bench trial. In federal court, there is a 38% chance of bench trial acquittal (12% of all federal criminal trials are bench trials while 88% are jury trials), some of which are for misdemeanors and traffic cases, and a 14% chance of jury trial acquittal. But only 2% of federal criminal cases go to trial (roughly 99.6% of cases presented to federal grand juries result in indictments) with the remainder plea bargained (90% of cases charged) or dismissed (8% of cases charged, sometimes due to a state court conviction), and only about 2% of all U.S. criminal cases are filed in federal court. So, federal criminal bench trials are very rare and atypical. Secondarily, there is lots of highly prejudicial and legally irrelevant information (e.g., the criminal history of the defendant, or evidence excluded for 4th Amendment violations) that a jury will not know, but a judge will know. Jurors almost never disregard evidence that they are told to disregard, and often give it undue weight, and judges aren't any better. The real question should be: Who chooses a bench trial and why, notwithstanding these facts? Some situations in which someone might consider a bench trial rather than a jury trial include: A bench trial can be easier for a pro se defendant, which is one not represented by counsel either because the defendant is not indigent and hence not entitled to counsel, or because the proceeding is one in which there is no right to counsel (usually traffic cases). In these, usually low stakes, matters the cost of counsel does not justify the expenditure and it can be easier to do a bench trial as a pro se party than a jury trial. The vast majority of criminal or quasi-criminal bench trials are in low stakes cases (which are segregated into separate courts in state court and mixed in with more serious cases in federal court) where this is a primary consideration. A bench trial can be desirable for someone who needs a quicker trial date (e.g., someone who lives somewhere seasonally and needs to get home), especially in a low stakes case where the sentence is likely to be a fine or a sentence to &quot;time served&quot; if there is a sentence. A bench trial can be desirable when the guilt-innocence determination is largely a foregone conclusion but the defendant would still like to at least try to be acquitted, as a way to more fully tell a story of how the incident was understandable even if not a legal justification for conduct, to prepare the judge for sentencing with a more full picture of what happened than a guilty plea would provide. For example, it might be a strategy that someone who assaults (ambush style) someone who raped his sister might take, even though a tape recorded confession and video tape of the incident makes the likelihood of acquittal small (unless the defendant thinks that &quot;jury nullification&quot;, i.e. ruling in his favor notwithstanding the law, is likely). Another example would be to provide a forum in a drug possession case to show that someone in possession of a large quantity of controlled substances was really a &quot;mule&quot; and not a big time dealer. This kind of consideration drives a fair number of bench trials in federal criminal cases. A bench trial can be desirable for a defendant who thinks that a judge will be favorably inclined towards him (e.g., some law enforcement officers or public officials). A bench trial can be desirable for a defendant when a jury is likely to be biased against him (e.g., a Muslim defendant at a time when anti-Muslim sentiment is strong due to some recent news event, or a defendant in a community with lots of racist potential jurors who is before a black judge). A bench trial can be desirable for a defendant whose primary defense requires above average sophistication to understand (e.g., a defendant in some complicated regulatory or white collar case). Bench trials are more attractive in cases where the criminal defendant is a first time offender, has no arrest record, and is not relying on suppressing any evidence at trial, so that the availability of more information to the judge than the jury is not a problem. A summary of jury trials in Colorado, which is typical, shows the revealed preference for jury trials. In 2016, defendants elected jury trials in 67% of traffic cases, 69% of misdemeanor cases, 97% of state court felony cases, and 59% of federal criminal cases (which are a mix of misdemeanors and felonies).
This determination is largely a facts and circumstances specific test to be evaluated with little additional legal guidance by the judge or jury faced with evaluating the question (usually a judge in the way that the issue usually presents itself). Like many fairly vague legal standards, it leaves open the possibility that there will be inconsistent rulings on this question in circumstances presenting similar facts.
canada There are some degrees of anonymity available: The court can refer to jurors simply by their number (&quot;Juror 5&quot;) when calling them to be seated at the outset of trial The court can order that no information that could identify a juror be published While the jury-selection cards are part of the court file, the court can order that they be sealed During the course of trial, jurors are to be referred to by their number In Canada there is no procedure available to have the jury be screened off from public view. The rationales for not having juries be completely unknown to the parties are: the open court principle it's a right of the defendant in a criminal case to be able to potentially challenge their conviction based on exceptional problems with the jury or its selection; a screened-off jury would prevent this practically, the defence and prosecution will have become aware of the jury through jury selection, including the ability to challenge their selection for cause there is a presumption that the ability to see directly and unmediated the demeanor of the witnesses is an important aspect of judging credibility; not everything would be seen via video There is likely much flexibility available for a court to allow a screened-off jury in a civil matter, but civil jury trials in Canada are not a right, and no court has seen it worth to experiment with such a thing.
Given that a murder and an involuntary manslaughter are two different offenses, could a jury be asked to adjudicate on both counts? This happens routinely. Could it find the defendant guilty of both? Only for certain offenses. See lesser included offense. Could the DA even accuse the defendant of both during the same trial? Yes, which is how juries are asked to adjudicate multiple offenses as noted above. What about in different trials? All the crimes associated with a given act have to be tried at once. If you've been acquitted of murder in connection with one act, you can't subsequently be tried for involuntary manslaughter for the same act, nor vice versa. And what about murder and attempted murder? I don't think it's possible to be tried for an attempt when the crime has been successful; certainly, the opposite is true. But again, if the charges are based on the same act (i.e., we know you tried to kill the victim, and we know someone succeeded, but we don't know whether it was you) then the charges would have to be tried at the same time.
The concept is known as lesser included offense. The prosecution believed that they have a chance to prove murder, so they charged murder, but they understood that the judge and jury might not convict on murder. So they said in effect, &quot;and if you won't find him guilty of murder, at least convict for manslaughter.&quot;
In the US, a person is generally protected from being tried for the same offense twice, but they are not necessarily absolutely &quot;protected&quot;. If a jury convicts a person but the judge enters a directed verdict of not guilty, the prosecution can appeal that action (Wilson v. US, 420 U.S. 332). The reason is that the acquittal could be disposed of on appeal without subjecting the person to a second trial. In contrast, in Fong Foo v. US, 369 U.S. 141 the trial judge ordered the jury to enter a verdict of acquittal. The appeals court rejected the judges basis for ordering an acquittal: but Fong Foo was &quot;protected&quot; because there could not be a second trial (double jeopardy), and it does not follow that the jury would have convicted but for the judge's order. The question reduces to the limited circumstances under which the prosecution can appeal a verdict. For instance, the prosecution can appeal a tre-trial motion to dismiss, and since there was no trial, there is no second jeopardy. Within a single jurisdiction, the only circumstance allowing a second trial involves bribery of a judge (Aleman v. Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County, 138 F.3d 302), where the basis for allowing a second trial is that defendant was not in jeopardy with the first trial. New evidence does not override a defendant's protection against a second trial, whether it is new DNA evidence or a confession. It does not matter if this evidence arises seconds after the final verdict is entered, or months after. Or even before, but the prosecution was unaware.
The United States gives the accused the right to a fair trial. However, it also gives exceptionally strong protection to the media (and to people in general) to speak on matters of public concern; there are very, very few cases where a US government (federal, state, or local) can legally order someone not to publish something (as opposed to letting it be published and then issuing sanctions). The rule of thumb for content-based restrictions on speech is that they must be the least restrictive way of achieving a compelling government interest. For trials, there are other ways to achieve a fair trial without restricting the press. One of the most preferred ways to do it is to use the voir dire process, in which jurors can be rejected for prejudice. Courts can also move the trial to a new location; they can grant motions from the defense to delay the trial while things cool down; they can sequester the jurors (meaning that the jurors are kept in a central place and prevented from talking to anyone else or reading anything about the case); if none of these are done, a conviction can potentially be reversed on appeal. US courts will, wherever possible, modify the trial to mitigate the damage done by the press, rather than restrict the press to mitigate the damage to the trial. For a review of a few different approaches to this in different jurisdictions, you might want to look at this law journal article.
Generally speaking, ex parte communications with a judge (i.e. communications to which all parties to a case are not notified) are prohibited, both by law and as a matter of judicial and attorney ethics, subject to some narrow exceptions (e.g. applications for arrest warrants prior to the arrest warrant being carried out). Generally speaking, communications with the court (which is to say with judges or their subordinates) are made a matter of public record, and if the communication is about a particular case, all attorneys in the case must be given notice of it (if someone is not represented by an attorney, the notice goes to the defendant rather than their non-existent attorney). The attorney may then communicate the communication to their client, and generally speaking should communicate it to the client. I don't see anything in the question that suggests that this proposed communication would fall outside the general rule. But, the question isn't very specific and I wouldn't rule out the possibility that an exception might apply in a case with very unusual facts. Also, usually, a request to reconsider a sentence has to be made by a formal motion filed by the prosecutor or the defendant. Generally speaking, a third-party cannot file that motion unilaterally. A third-party or victim would usually only have input into the decision through the prosecutor's office. Third parties and victims are not generally permitted to file motions to reconsider sentences that have been imposed even in states with "victim's rights" statutes, but can publicly provide input to the court before a sentence is imposed, usually at the behest of either the prosecutor or the defendant. Furthermore, generally a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to not have a sentence made more severe after being sentenced the first time around. Reconsideration of a sentence once it is imposed may only be in the direction of leniency. Once a sentence is imposed, it can't be reconsidered to be made more harsh.