How is a Jury Trial Different from a Bench Trial and How Might That Impact My Post-Conviction Appeal?
Under Maryland criminal law, a person accused of a crime has a right to a trial before a jury in most cases. In some minor criminal cases, that right does not exist and, more importantly, a criminally accused can waive his or her right to a jury trial. So, what is the difference between a jury trial and a bench trial and how might that impact a post-conviction appeal?
A jury trial is what is most often depicted in movies and in television programs. A jury is a group of citizens who are asked to sit and listen to the evidence. Usually a criminal jury contains 12 members (and, maybe, a couple of alternate jurors). The jury listens to the evidence, makes judgments with respect to the credibility of witnesses and, after deliberation, renders a verdict of guilty or not guilty. On post-conviction appeal, the factual determinations of the jury are generally given great weight and deference.
By contrast, a bench trial occurs only in front of the judge. There is no jury in the courtroom. Like the jury, the judge listens to the evidence, makes judgments with respect to the credibility of witnesses and, after consideration, renders a verdict of guilty or not guilty. On post-conviction appeal, the factual determinations made by the judge are also generally given great weight and deference by the reviewing court.
However, on post-conviction appeal, if there are legal mistakes made during the trial, there are significant differences in how the appellate courts will handle those mistakes. Because jurors generally lack any sophistication with respect to the criminal law, any mistakes will be treated more seriously and will more likely result in a reversal of the conviction. The opposite is true for mistakes made during a bench trial.
The recent case of Smith v. State, Case No. 926, September Term 2020 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland 2021) illustrates the legal principles. That case involved a DUI charge. The mistake was to admit into evidence, over objection, the criminal defendant’s prior driving record. This was a mistake because the full record contained numerous prior, irrelevant traffic violations. In general, evidence of prior arrests and convictions are not allowed to be introduced as evidence.
However, not all mistakes will lead to reversal of a criminal conviction. Some mistakes are deemed by the courts to be “harmless.” In Smith v. State, the appeals court held that, if the case had been before a jury, the mistake would NOT have been “harmless” and, in theory, would have justified a reversal of the conviction.
When a trial is a bench trial, the rule on whether a mistake is “harmless” is different. The rule is no longer about “harmlessness,” but about whether or not the judge relied on the mistakenly admitted evidence. Further, the appellate court will “give deference” if the trial judge makes “specific statements on the record that the court was not considering certain testimony or evidence.”
In Smith v. State, the appellate court agreed that admitting the full driving record of the defendant was a mistake. But, on review, the court record showed that the trial judge did not rely upon those portions of the driving record that should have not been admitted. The appellate court noted, for example, that, in announcing the verdict, the judge made no mention of the driving record whatsoever. The trial judge also stated on the record that he “did not look back and look through the details [of the driving record] earlier.” The appellate court upheld the convictions on appeal.
Contact Waldorf, Maryland Criminal Defense Lawyer Robert Castro Today
This article has been provided by the Law Office of Robert Castro. For more information or questions contact our office to speak to an experienced Maryland criminal defense lawyer at (301)705-5137.
