Judges, Juries, and the Decision To Convict

• NCJ Number: 79809
• Journal: Journal of Criminal Justice Volume: 9 Issue: 4 Dated: (1981) Pages: 289-303
• Author(s): M A Myers
• Date Published: 1981
• Length: 15 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: University of Georgia
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Using data on 2,413 cases that proceeded to trial in the District of Columbia Superior Court between 1974 and 1975, this study analyzed differences between judges' and juries' decisions to convict and found that bench trials did not rely more heavily on legally relevant factors.

Abstract

Bench trials, when a defendant waives the right to trial by jury, are considered more efficient than jury trials and have been touted as an advance in criminal justice administration. Moreover, it has been assumed that judges will be freer of prejudices and consider more legally relevant factors than juries because of their expert training. To explore the judicial decisionmaking process, this study examined 2,413 jury and bench trials collected under the PROMIS system in the District of Columbia Superior Court. A discussion of the methodology notes that sharp prosecutorial distinctions exist in the District of Columbia between misdemeanors and felonies and that bench trials constitute about 35 percent of all cases going to trial. The study found that judges tended to apply different criteria than jurors in determining guilt, but that the use of such standards was shaped by the ways crime was classified. Differences in treatment were more consistent for property crime, whereas judges and juries handled violent crimes in a similar manner. The analysis indicated that juries were slightly more concerned than judges with legally relevant case features in misdemeanors, such as recovered evidence and victim-defendant relationships. In felony cases, judges tended to give more weight to corroborative evidence and weapons in deciding guilt than did juries. Legally irrelevant features did affect misdemeanor outcomes for property crimes in both judge and jury trials, although each used different criteria. Judges tended to be more lenient toward males, and juries were more lenient toward the young. While bench trials were more efficient than jury trials, there is no evidence in this study that they reflect stricter adherence to the rules of evidence and ignore legally irrelevant factors. Tables, footnotes, and 45 references are included.