HONORS  MENTORSHIP

Recently I conducted an interview with one of the lawyers at the office where I do my mentorship. This interview is about jury and bench trials. (“Q” means the question I asked, “A” means the answer I was given, and “R” is my response to the answer after the interview was completed)

 

 

 

 

 

 

The picture to the right is a picture of Mr. Conowal, the man that helped me with most of

my research and completed this interview. The break down of his cases is as such: 25%

Criminal Defense, 25% Divorce / Separation, 25% Child Custody, 15% Child Support, and

10% Car / Auto Accident. Mr. Conowal and his Legal Assistant Diane Toal taught me most of

what I know. Through letting me help in case research, telling me about current cases, and

answering all of my questions they were able to teach me more than I thought I could learn

about the profession while being in high school.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Q: What is the difference between a bench trial and a jury trial?

A: A bench trial is one where the entire outcome of the case is decided by the judge (the “Bench”) and in a jury trial the facts and verdict are decided by a panel of jurors (in most cases made of up of 12 members, but can be fewer, such as 6). In a jury trial, a judge still has the ability to take the case out of the jury’s “hands” by deciding the case in advance of a verdict, or notwithstanding a verdict.

R: My question in response to this would be what would determine the number of people in the jury? Why would it vary?  

 

Q: Why would a bench trial be better?

A: That depends almost entirely on the facts and circumstances of the case. To be sure, it can be beneficial for an experienced judge to decide the case, rather than laypersons. It can also save a great deal of time and money. Yet, sometimes a jury trial is of greater advantage because inexperience with the law can be favorable to an outcome, and an award of damages, which is the typically the purpose of the case in civil trials. In criminal trials, a jury can be more sympathetic than some judges, which may be beneficial, as well.

R: This is interesting, I always thought a jury trial would always be better.

 

Q: What are the downsides to a bench trial?

A: As mentioned, sometimes judges are far less sympathetic than a jury would be. Judges typically are less impressionable than a jury, which means the judge may be less likely to be persuaded by an attorney’s argument in favor of a particular outcome.

R: Interesting, I always thought that judges would be the same as a jury in relation to the ability to be persuaded. It makes sense thought that there would be a difference though.

 

Q: Why would a jury trial be better?

A: Again, that depends. In a civil case a jury may be more likely to award more in damages, where a judge may be much more conservative. Yet, in a criminal case a judge should strictly follow the law, but a jury may decide the case on emotions rather than the law.

R: Do judges always strictly follow the law? Also, I would be curious to know what the odds are of being counted guilty in a jury trial in comparison to a bench trial.

 

Q: What are the downsides to a jury trial?

A: Emotions come far more into play, and convincing 12 is far more difficult than convincing a single judge. Jury trials are also very expensive. It takes significantly longer for a jury trial to be held—in some instances a case may languish about for years before a case is called for a jury trial.

R: This makes me curious as to know what determines how the time until the jury trial is held is decided. Are there certain cases that get a higher priority? Could you make a case have a higher priority?

 

Q: Is there any difference in the way you would present things in a jury trial vs a bench trial?

A: Sure. In a jury trial you want to appeal to emotions, but in a bench trial the judge will go so far as to tell attorneys to, “Spare me the theatrics, this isn’t a jury trial!”

R: I could see how this would be true. How do you appeal to the emotion of the jury?

 

Q: In a jury trial, how is the jury decided?

A: The litigants pick the jury from a pool of potential jurors.

R: This is interesting to think about. For instance what would make one person to be chosen over another? What makes a person a good potential juror versus one you wouldn’t want?

 

Q: Why are some people picked and others not?

A: Sometimes potential jurors are “stricken” for cause—they have some bias or other inability to serve. In most cases, however, the litigants will use “strikes” to remove potential jurors from the pool to ensure they do not make it on the jury (for strategy reasons). However, litigants cannot openly strike a potential juror for an impermissible reason, such as race, or religion.

R: What would be the “strategy reason”? Why would you not want a certain person on the jury? What would be an example of a permissible reason?

 

Q: In a jury trial, are the people in the jury required to make a decision based on the law?

A: A jury applies decides what the facts are and applies the law to those facts with the help of jury charges. These charges are drawn from statutes and case law.

R: This is interesting. I know that the jury probably knows some law but I’m sure they don’t know all of them or all of the ones pertaining to a specific case. Does the jury get any information on the laws that are being discussed in the trial?

 

Q: Do people often decide on emotion?

A: Jurors, most definitely. Judges, far less frequently, but it happens, of course.

R: This makes me wonder how hard it must be for a judge to decide without accounting for emotion. I can only imagine it would be incredibly difficult to keep your emotions at bay when you feel strongly about something.