In many cases, especially when the crime is publicly scorned (i.e. DUI, domestic violence, animal cruelty, sex offenses) yet a bona-fide defense exists, one should consider waiving a jury trial. The case is then tried to only the judge. This can make it easier to focus the case on evidence and argument that matters most toward a not guilty verdict, rather than spending a lot of time and effort persuading twelve jurors to put aside their biases.

A bench trial may also be a prudent choice when a defendant’s appearance suggests membership in a gang, i.e. numerous tattoos, and gang activity is an issue. Likewise, when the defendant looks like a heavy drug user and sales or possession is an issue, a bench trial may be better than a jury trial. A judge may also be less emotionally swayed by certain evidence than would a jury.

A bench trial is also faster and the judge often returns a “finding” (the functional equivalent of a verdict) much quicker than in a jury trial. A quicker trial also means the trial is less expensive for the defendant if he has private counsel.

Generally speaking, a bench trial is advantageous really in only a small percentage of trials. A jury trial is usually heavily favored by most defendants because it allows twelve persons, rather than one, to determine witness credibility and, in some cases, unreasonable conduct by police. Some people consider a jury trial a right against government oppression. Defendants generally trust that a jury will acquit or render a not guilty verdict more often (than a judge). The O.J. trial certainly validated this belief.

Both the defendant and the People have the right to a jury trial in misdemeanor and felony trials (California Constitution, Article I,