A question I have always been curious about is under what circumstances do parties take a bench trial (in which questions of fact and questions of law in the case are decided solely by the judge) and under what circumstances do parties take a jury trial (the jury generally decides the facts of the case, but the judge still determines the law relevant in the case)?
There is a division between how the federal courts and how the state courts deal with bench and jury trials, and also between civil and criminal cases. The federal courts follow the sixth and seventh amendments of the US Constitution, which respectively say,
Sixth: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Seventh:In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
The federal rules for right to a trial by jury, however, do not apply to the state courts. State constitutions do not necessarily have to provide parties with the same right to trial by jury as the US Constitution provides, but many do so.
Criminal courts give the right to trial by jury to the defendant, who may waive that right. Civil courts can provide the right to both the defendant and the plaintiff in the trial. In civil trials where the parties are entitled to a jury, the defendant and plaintiff must both waive the right to trial by jury; otherwise, if one party still favors to have a jury trial, then a jury trial is given.
There are plenty of cases that are not entitled to a trial by jury. For example, in one case, a defendant in a landlord-tenant case claimed the right to a jury trial because "some facts were disputed." Mr. X, the defendant, claimed that he should be able to live in an apartment promised to him by his girlfriend/wife (wasn't clear if they were married). However, the plaintiff, Ms. Y, is the daughter of the defendant's partner, and she says the apartment was given to her by her mother, that she has the deed to the apartment, and because she wants to sell the apartment and can no longer afford to pay for it, she needs Mr. X evicted. What the judge considered in this motion hearing was whether or not this case merited a jury trial---were there facts in dispute? The judge told the attorney that it was a creative try, but since the plaintiff actually had the deed to the apartment, no facts remained disputed. Only issues of law (NY housing law) remained, and this case would go back to housing court, instead of being trial under a jury in civil court.
If the right to trial by jury applies to a case, it is also up to the lawyer's discretion whether a jury or bench trial would be better for her client. The cons of a bench trial cited by attorneys is that judges have seen many similar cases and are less easily persuaded and are less apt to see the nuances pertaining to each case. The cons of a jury trial include a hastily selected jury (a summary jury trial can restrict jury selection to 30 minutes per side, or even 30 minutes for both sides) and a jury that is swayed by prejudicial factors that do not necessarily pertain to the case at hand (ex. prior unrelated offenses or bad habits that a party admits to).
Sometimes pro se cases end up with a jury trial. Pro se means a party represents him or herself, and is not represented by an attorney. While the right to a jury trial remains even if a party does not have an attorney, this party is at a disadvantage because he may be less experienced at picking a jury than an attorney would be. Before jury selection, the judge generally does advise the pro se on what to do. What usually has happened in these cases is that the party had elected to do a jury trial while he was represented by an attorney, but he had either dismissed the attorney or the attorney had left the case before the trial.
Judges know pretty well how a case will go when attorneys present the vital facts, and in terms of civil cases, judges can roughly estimate how much the injury is worth, and how much the jury will give (if the jury has already been selected and the trial is underway). Judges encourage parties to settle, whether during pre-trial conferences, or even as the jury has gone in for deliberations. Depending in the circumstances, a judge can even recommend a settlement amount for the attorneys, and these suggested monetary amounts can be the tipping point for clients who have refused the opposing side's offers before.
I had asked that question early on in my internship and the answer I had received, which I think was as accurate as a non-long-winded answer could be, was that everyone has a right to a jury trial. But short question, long answer. And only one of many questions to be determined when looking to litigate a case.
