Jury trial vs bench trial

In a criminal proceeding in state court, a defendant may face a jury trial or a bench trial. All
defendants charged with non-petty criminal offenses (any charge that carries a possibility of
six months or more in jail) are guaranteed the right to a trial by jury.

First of all I think it is necessary to give some information about both kinds of trials. A jury
trial is a trial before a jury of 6 or 12 people who, after hearing the evidence and legal
arguments, decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charges against him. At
a jury trial, the judge must rule on the procedural and evidentiary issues such as who can
testify what witnesses can testify about, and what documents or physical evidence the jury
can consider.

On the mindmap you can see the main responsibilities and functions of the jury.

A bench trial is the trial without jury. At a bench trial, the judge makes the same procedural
decisions, hears the evidence, and decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

So which is better? Are there any advantages to one over the other?

Each kind of trial has its advantages and disadvantages. When we talk about jury trial we
can name the following advantages:

1) People have a right to be tried by their peers; the 12 ordinary men and women who
comprise a jury are more likely to arrive at the truth than a single judge, however capable
because it is the chief bulwark of the common man against abuse by the State or by
individual members of the legal profession.

2) In all cases where the credit of either party to a lawsuit is at issue, a jury is still the best
tribunal because its members usually have more first- hand qualification than any judge to
form a valid opinion upon facts connected with the daily life of ordinary people.

3) At times when legislation lags behind the social conscience, the jury system enables
ordinary citizens to force the legislature's hand by refusing to find a verdict in accordance
with unjust laws. That is how abolition of the death penalty for stealing was first achieved.
4) The jury composed of a diverse and unbiased group of people can lend some definite
advantages to a person being tried for crime. Unfair bias was what the trial by the jury
system was originally invented to prevent.

5) A guilty verdict must be unanimous – This is a major advantage of jury trials, and the
most important reason that a defendant will choose a trial by jury. It is much harder for many
people agree on one decision.

6) Emotional Cases have Weight – When lawyers argue in front of a jury, they will try to tell
a story that elicits an emotional response. Generally speaking, juries are easier to sway
emotionally than judges.

Now about disadvantages of the jury trial:

1) The protection formerly represented by the jury system is no longer necessary, now that
the judiciary's independence of the state is accepted as sacrosanct and that there are, in any
case, so many checks and balances against legal abuse.

2) In all but the most straightfor-ward cases, juries are likely to be influenced by one
dominant personality among their members and also by the impression they pick up from the
judge's summing up, rather than solely from the facts presented to them during the hearing.

3) Whatever the merits of the jury system in criminal cases, they do not apply to anything
like the same extent in civil proceedings. Some verdicts delivered by juries in civil cases
have been notoriously unjust, usually as a result of sheer prejudice or ignorance among the
jurors.

4) Juries represent public opinion, but this can often turn out to be ill-informed, wrong-
headed or unfairly prejudiced.

5) Juries are known to be unpredictable. Jurors may misunderstand the judge’s instructions
or fail to comprehend the burden of proof.

As for the bench trial, its advantages are the following:

1) A quicker resolution. A bench trial is usually a quicker way to complete a case because it
can be scheduled sooner and does not require jury selection and jury instructions, which
make the trial process last much longer.

2) Dealing with irrelevant and damaging information. If information will come out at trial
that puts the defendant in a bad light, but which is technically irrelevant to the charge, a
judge might be more neutral than a jury and better able to set that aside in deciding whether
the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

3) Applying the rules. If the case turns on applying a complex legal rule to the facts of the
case, some attorneys and legal experts believe juries will have difficulty with the process or
even ignore the rule, and that a bench trial might be a better choice.
 4) The judge knows the law – If the defendant truly feels that the law is on his side, a bench
trial may be the better option. A judge will better understand the nuances of the law than a
jury. Further, they are more likely to understand complex legal arguments.

5) Juries are inexperienced and unpredictable. This is, by far, the most important advantage
to a bench trial. Since jurors have little legal training, they may misunderstand or
misinterpret something that the attorneys present in court.

But bench trial carries risks for a defendant because:

 One person decides. At a bench trial, the prosecutor has to convince only one person
of a defendant’s guilt, while at a jury trial he must convince all 6 or 12 people.
 The judge knows all the evidence. At either a jury or bench trial, the judge decides
what evidence will be admitted. Prejudicial, irrelevant, or untrustworthy evidence is
excluded, and ideally the jury never hears it. But at a bench trial, where the judge is
the jury, it might be hard for the judge to disregard damaging evidence that is
technically inadmissible, no matter how conscientious the judge might be.
 The judge will follow the rules. In some cases, the defense strategy is to hope that the
jury will not follow the rules and will acquit on emotional or political grounds instead.
 Pressure to convict. Some experts question the neutrality of judges when deciding
whether a defendant is guilty. Critics suspect that, because they hold public office and
may have to stand for re-election, judges may be tempted to please the public’s
perceived desire for conviction.

Jury Trials vs. Bench Trials

Juries Judges

Tend to be more sympathetic to injured plaintiffs Tend to be less sympathetic to injured plaintiffs

Are more likely to be confused by complex legal Are less likely to be confused by complex legal
issues and intricate facts issues and intricate facts

Often take more time than bench trials Often take less time than jury trials

May have political biases (such as an inclination

May have personal biases toward corporations), especially in states where
judges are elected officials

Are more likely to award punitive damages Are less likely to award punitive damages

Are more likely to provide high damage awards Are less likely to provide high damage awards

Are less sympathetic to self-represented litigants Are more sympathetic to self-represented litigants
So I want to conclude all the facts in the table.
From my point of view, there can’t be a definite answer about which trial is better.

“Our civilization has decided… that determining the guilt or innocence of men is a thing too
important to be trusted to trained men… When it wants a library catalogued, or the solar
system discovered, or any trifle of that kind, it uses up its specialists. But when it wishes
anything done which is really serious, it collects twelve of the ordinary men standing round.

― G.K. Chesterton

This quote proves that sometimes the decisions of the juries may be very impartial. Their
emotionality may save someone life, but we should remember that not all people who are on
trial are innocent, that means that jurors may save the real murder just because there is luck
of evidence or the defendant is good at pretending not guilty. That is why, a case with
riveting facts is often a better candidate for a jury trial. The jury may sympathize with the
defendant in a criminal case.

The jury trial may be the last and the best chance for fredoom for people who are not guilty.
As the verdict must be unanimous only one juror can save someone’s life and change the
opinion of other jurors just like we saw it in the film “12 angry men”. In this case the
emotionality of jurors can be useful, because they can found somethin that neither judge nor
lawyers simply don’t want to search.

On the other hand the reasons to choose a bench trial instead of a jury trial should be
carefully weighed. The defendant and his or her attorney must weigh often complex facts as
well as significant financial and legal consequences. The bench tial is a good decision for
someone who knows that he is not guilty, has a lot of evidence and witnesses because the
judge will decide the case by this facts while the decision the the juries may be
unpredictable.