Bench Trials and Jury Trials
Commercial dispute plaintiffs in the United States often get to decide whether to have their claims decided at trial by judge or by a jury. Plaintiffs often select juries, because juries may be sympathetic to their claims. But there are also compelling reasons for a plaintiff to have a “bench trial,” in which the judge decides the facts of a case.
Why should you continue to read this post about bench trials and jury trials?
You want to serve on a jury but criminal cases are too interesting.
You want to know why litigants would have a private commercial matter be decided by a jury pool of ordinary people.
You are curious enough about the additional work that goes into different kinds of trials to read a blog post, but not so curious that you would ask someone out loud.
Why Plaintiffs Make Jury Demands
When a plaintiff files a complaint, the plaintiff may state that it demands a trial by jury. But just because it demands a jury trial, does not mean that it will get one. Instead, its case may be dismissed before trial for a variety of reasons, such as a failure to state a claim or because the claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
But assuming a dispute proceeds to trial, a plaintiff may select a jury because jury may sympathize with its claims. For example, if the plaintiff is an individual or a small business and the defendant is a large corporation, plaintiff’s counsel may believe that an average juror identifies more with the weaker party than the stronger one.
Additionally, if the plaintiff alleges that the defendant acted reprehensibly, such as by defrauding people or engaging in discrimination, the plaintiff may believe a jury is more likely to punish a defendant than a judge that sees similar claims frequently and may be less disgusted by each individual one. This may lead a jury to be more likely to find a defendant liable, and more likely to demand that the defendant pay a very high amount of damages. The uncertainty from a jury verdict may pressure a defendant to settle rather than risk a high jury award.
But a plaintiff may choose not to have a jury trial for various reasons. If the plaintiff is from outside of the jurisdiction or if it is a large corporation, it may fear that the jury pool will sympathize with the defendant. And if the subject matter of the dispute is very technical, it may prefer to have a judge evaluate the evidence instead of the general jury pool.
Jury Trials Require Additional Work
Jury trials require a lot of extra work that may not go into a bench trial. First, the attorneys need to work together to select a jury. The attorneys need to interview potential jurors and may even consult with an expert who can help decide which jurors are likely to support their case. And often attorneys hire focus groups to determine which aspects of their case are more persuasive to potential jurors.
Before trial, attorneys usually argue about what evidence the jury can hear, and the judge decides what evidence is likely to confuse the jury or is too prejudicial for the jury to consider. Attorneys will also argue about what instructions the judge should issue to the jury at the end of the case before they deliberate.
During the trial, the judge spends time giving the jury instructions. And some additional time is taken waiting for the jury to arrive, waiting again for them to walk from the jury room to the courtroom, and waiting for them to leave. And whenever the judge wants to speak without the jury present, the proceedings need to stop so the jury can leave the courtroom.
Attorneys at jury trials also need to be conscious of whether their presentation is holding the jury’s attention. No evidence is likely to persuade a sleeping juror. This may cause an attorney to cut out some evidence that is dry or repetitive, or to present live arguments or testimony or graphic demonstrations that could have been presented on paper to a judge in a bench trial.
In the event the jury is unable to reach a verdict, there may be a mistrial and the entire trial may need to take place again with a new jury. And in the event of an appeal, if the appellate court is unable to explain how a jury reached its verdict, the court may order a new trial. Further, a litigant may ask the judge to decide that the evidence is so overwhelming on one side that a jury should not decide it, requiring the parties to debate that issue with the judge.
Bench Trials Also Require Additional Work
Although bench trials do not require the lawyers to select a jury, or to stop and start when juries enter and leave, they also require additional work.
The main additional work that a bench trial requires is post-trial briefing. This is a written report for the judge that each side submits that explains what evidence at trial should lead the judge to rule in their favor, citing specific exhibits and citations to the trial transcript.
After post-trial briefing, a judge at a bench trial issues a written opinion, explaining why she ruled for one side or the other. That opinion may be a very lengthy document, which means the decision may not come out until months after the trial ends.
Then each side carefully reads the judge’s opinion and decides whether any aspect of it is so mistaken that it is worth appealing. Although parties can appeal jury verdicts, it is more difficult to appeal a jury verdict since it is unclear what evidence the jury relied upon when making its decision. Thus, appellate courts may uphold a jury verdict so long as any evidence in the record supports it. But when a judge writes a detailed opinion explaining her reasoning, it is easier for an appellate to argue that the judge was mistaken.