Poll: Jury or Bench Trial

[Lon]

I’m curious what my fellow LEOs on PF think would be better to have if they were charged for an on duty shooting. With the TX trial that just ended in a conviction and the Chicago Officer trial that is looming, I personally think risking a jury trial is nuts - unless the Judge in question has a history of anti-LEO decisions.

What do you think? Pros and cons for both?

[Hambo]

It's area dependent. Where I live I think you could get a good jury and there are some very pro-LE judges, so you could go either way. There are other areas here where you would want to choose 'none of the above'.

[blues]

I think if one can demonstrate within the letter and spirit of the law, (and to the satisfaction of one's attorney), that one acted in good faith, I'd prefer to take my chances with a judge.

Not that they can't be swayed by public opinion and political motivations...

That said, juries always did me right in my (non capital) cases which they had to sit in judgment of.

Tough decision, but I lean toward a bench trial and I know that's how I felt on the matter before retiring.

[KeeFus]

Depends on the specific circumstances of the incident, media attention, backing from the department, and the mindset of the local population.

FWIW, for where i live, I voted for jury trial based off my perception of all that I listed above...

[jnc36rcpd]

Obviously, this is jurisdiction and fact specific, but I would generally go for a bench trial.

[TR675]

There is no way to answer this question absent a serious analysis of, and in depth local, institutional (from the defense bar) knowledge of, the individual judge and potential jury pool.

Even then it’s a crapshoot if there is media attention.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FNFAN]

Bench if the law is on your side. Jury if people's emotions would be on your side.

[LockedBreech]

I practice in front of 6 judges on a regular basis (9 if you count magistrates and part-timers) and there is just no way to answer that question without the specific facts and local context of each particular case. I have chosen bench or jury based on each individual case I've had whether I was prosecuting (if D would agree) or defending. There are just too many factors. That judge's decisions lately, his decisions in general, the current attitude of the community toward the particular issue.

One amusing misjudgment I made in my early prosecutorial career was being CERTAIN my jury would convict my defendant of misdemeanor battery (I had a confession, testimony on the stand he did it, high def video and pics, positive ID from the officer). They acquitted for the following reasons:

1.) The victim had previously stolen $200 from defendant, there was credible testimony of that
2.) Both victims were active meth users - both from testimony and super obviously

It's a rural area ravaged by meth. They did not give a shit about a meth user punching another meth user, and further rural folks have that country justice idea a lot, that you get what you have coming sometimes (for stealing the cash) and the State need not get involved.

I wouldn't make the same mistake today, I'd try that to the bench, my judge would have sympathized with the stolen money but would have convicted in my case, I'm 99.9% sure. That's one of a million examples of how the particular context not only of the charge, but of the area, matters.

[Wayne Dobbs]

I've done expert witness on a couple of officer trials. Both were aggravated assaults and in one, I felt the officer was guilty. In the other, I felt his actions were justified. The first was a jury trial and they hung on trial number one and acquitted on the second. The second case was before the bench and the judge acquitted immediately. Same ADA on both. It's a crap shoot on anything and you'd better hope your counsel knows the landscape and his case perfectly.

BTW, I feel that TX officer was guilty, perhaps not of murder, but his actions were not in line. YMMV.

[BigDaddy]

There is no way VanDyke can get a fair trial in Cook County in a jury trial. The trial MUST be moved to downstate. Out of state would be even better if it were possible. The judge in the case tends to be pro police but there will be so much pressure on him I’m not sure what he will do. I do believe however that this was a HORRIBLE shooting and that VanDyke needs some sit down time. I don’t know why he shot as we are not trained that way. But no matter what, IMHO Chicago is going to burn.

[BigDaddy]

BTW, I don’t know VanDyke personally but those that do say this was out of charter and were surprised to learn it was he that was involved. Everyone said he is normally pretty level headed