Justice, not efficiency should be main criteria in how cases are tried
Published August 27, 2014
Editorial by Wilmington Star-News, August 26, 2014.
Aside from casting ballots for specific candidates, North Carolina voters will be asked to decide whether to amend the state constitution to permit criminal defendants in felony cases to waive their right to a jury trial in favor of going before a single judge. The General Assembly voted nearly unanimously to put the issue on the ballot; if it passes, North Carolina would join the other 49 states in offering that choice.
According to a report by the University of North Carolina School of Government, the system has neither hamstrung nor significantly streamlined the justice systems in those other states. For one thing, a small percentage of defendants, from 5 percent to 30 percent of those whose cases go to trial, choose the bench trial over a jury trial. In most states, the vast majority of criminal cases end in a plea – the figure is more than 95 percent in North Carolina.
That said, it would be a major change to the legal system.
The lone North Carolina lawmaker who opposed the ballot issue made the point that the state may be tempted to reduce court costs by cutting spending on legal expenses for indigent defendants, leading to pressure on their attorneys to have their clients waive a jury trial. Other concerns include whether judges will be influenced by fancy lawyers hired by well-to-do defendants, or whether judge-shopping by defendants would become a problem. They are valid concerns, but could be minimized if stringent safeguards are applied.
Some legal experts note that some defendants may actually get a fairer shake with a judge who knows the law and can spot prosecutorial overreach. In that regard, the change may have little impact on the overall operation of the courts. It may, however, provide more flexibility if it is properly regulated.
The state constitution requires that felony trials be decided by jury, a measure intended to provide equal treatment of all defendants and put the judge's undivided attention on ensuring a fair, proper trial. The amendment would permit defendants to choose a bench trial, except in a death-penalty case. The judge could reject the request; in many states prosecutors also have a right to insist on a jury trial.
It is troubling that the main motivation for the proposed change has been cost and efficiency, as opposed to the primary objective of our courts: justice. Saving money and reducing backlog are always a consideration, but they should not take priority over ensuring due process and a fair trial for anyone accused of a crime.
With everything else going on in Raleigh during a prolonged "short" session, this proposal hasn't gotten a lot of media attention. There are good arguments for and against the amendment. But we know the system we have now; we don't know exactly what to expect under a different system.
The main question, however, is not whether this change would make the courts more efficient, but whether it would improve their ability to carry out justice.
