Emergency jury in american law?

Question

in american law

if there is one person want jury

but the other one does not want jury

what would happen?

Answer 1

It depends on the jurisdiction.  And this is an overview, but not legal advice.  I also assume that this is a criminal case.

In the United States, the Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial.  Thus, the one person who wants the jury trial will get the jury trial.

We are also assuming by your question that both people involved are co-defendants, charged with committing a crime together.

We also need to assume that the two will be tried together (one trial).  This is often done, because the evidence will be the same.  But, there are circumstances where the trials will be separated (for example, if one defendant has made a statement to the police, but will remain silent at trial, the statement is often admisssible against the one making it, but not against the co-defendant).

Ok, so here is what happens:

a.  If the prosecutor does not agree to a bench (judge) trial, it will mean both defendants get a jury trial (in most states, both sides have to agree to waive the jury trial).

b.  If the prosecutor agrees to a bench trial for one defendant, the judge can either order:

i.  separate trials; or

ii.  Two trials at once.  But the jury will render a verdict only as to one defendant.  The judge will issue findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the other defendant.

This rarely happens, because for political reasons, judges are very unlikely to acquit.  But there are cases, where the defense is legally complex, where a jury would be waived.  The judge is more likely to understand the complex legal defense; and the jury more likely to hear the facts and, not understanding the complex legal defense, decide to convict.

Let me illustrate.  A defendant is charged with breaking an entering.  The defense is that (according to the law), breaking and entering requires that a person:  (a) Enter a residence; (b) using force etc.; (c) with intent to commit a burglary.  Now, lets assume that the person has broken into a barn.  But in the barn, on that night, was a stable boy, who was sleeping with a sick cow.  The defense is that, although the stable boy was there, the barn is not a residence.  The legal definition of "residence" will be the entire defense.

A jury hears - he broke the lock; he did not have permission; he tried to steal the prized cow; that's breaking and entering.  But the entire defense is technical -- the place he broke into was a barn - not a residence.  He might want the judge to rule on this case.

His co-defendant, who just went along for the ride, and did not ever enter the barn, did not help plan the robbery, and did not ever enter the barn, did not touch anything involved, might want a jury.  His defense -- I didn't have anything to do with it.  This defendant might want the jury to decide, because while he can add the fact that it was a barn - not a residence - the real defense is that he was not involved.

Ok, so in that case, the judge might well try the cases together.  The jury would decide whether the second guy is guilty.  The judge would render a decision as to whether or not the defendant was guilty or innocent based on the definition of "residence".

Hope this helps.