Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: jury

Both the prosecution and the defense have a right to a jury trial. This means that a jury can be waived only if both sides agree. I've never seen a case where the defendant wanted to waive a jury but the prosecution didn't.

Usually the defendant is better off with a jury because there can be no conviction unless all 12 jurors agree. In a court or bench trial, it takes only the judge to convict. That judge is likely to be a former prosecutor who is not inclined to be favorably disposed to defendants in the first place. Add to this the fact that the judge must stand for election every six years and may fear being labeled "soft on crime" and you begin to understand why defense counsel almost always demand juries. On the other hand, situations do arise when it is sensible to waive a jury. Clarence Darrow did this in the famous Leopold and Loeb case in the 1920s. This murder case touched off intense community outrage that made a death sentence almost a foregone conclusion. By having his clients plead guilty and letting the judge determine the penalty after a passionate and eloquent defense argument, Darrow almost certainly saved his clients from death.