Submitted by Robert Irmas, Jan 26, 2008 15:18

As a former criminal defense attorney as well as a Deputy District Attorney, It has been my experience that the guilty ask for a jury, while the innocent are willing to put their faith in a bench trial. You see, the guilty have to convince only one person in twelve, and in fact try to pick a jury where there may be a juror who appears to be one who will disregard logic and reason, thus "hanging up" the jury. (a la Phil Spector) However, in a trial where the judge is the trier of both fact and the law, the defendant is giving up all rights to a hung jury, as well as any chance of appeal using the argument that a jury was prejudiced by some piece of testimony or other evidence which the judge later told them to disregard. (sometimes called "un-ringing the bell"). The fact of the matter is that whatever the Defendant's decision as to who would be the trier of fact, judge or jury, Rev. Al would condemn the decision as being deceitful.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.