A jury trial is there to ensure that the system doesn’t use the knowledge/authority of the judge just to punish people they don’t like instead of punishing people guilty of a crime. Judges are supposed to be impartial and many do try to do that intrinsically but the jury is there just in case.
But a judge is still there as an expert who can set rules and expectations so that counsel on either side also doesn’t take advantage of a jurors ignorance in law or whatever to push their side when the facts wouldn’t support it or the evidence is inadmissable. Like if the prosecutor says there is a confession to the police but the defendant says they only confessed because they were being beaten up by the police a judge is there to decide whether or not the jury should consider that confession when deliberating.
Obviously a juror can’t unhear something that was said in court but made inadmissable but if the judge explains that what they heard can’t be used against the defendant then that might make a difference if that is the big reason why a juror thinks someone is guilty or not.
But! You can also request what’s called a “bench trial” where you leave the decision up to the judge. You have the right to a jury trial (in certain cases, it’s not entirely universal) but you’re not obligated to take it if you think your chances are pretty good that the judge will see the law is on your side.
Same applies to trials with multiple judges. The idea is that multiple people will either all clearly agree what should be done or they’ll work to figure out what is to be done when there is disagreement. That’s another reason why juries need to be unanimous and if they can’t reach a decision that may default to exonerating the defendant or triggering a new trial or at least making the decision easier to appeal.
Latest Answers