At the end of the trial, the judge instructs the jury on the applicable law. The judge knows all the evidence. In a trial, the judge ultimately decides what evidence will be admitted. The jury never sees unreliable, irrelevant, or harmful evidence, since the judge excludes it.
But when there's no jury, the judge sees all the evidence and can't stop looking at it. It can be difficult for a judge to ignore inadmissible evidence, no matter how impartial and conscientious the judge is. Before we discuss the difference between the two options, there are a few things you should understand about a criminal trial. A trial is a structured process in which the alleged facts are presented to a group of people (a jury) or to a single person (judge).
This group, or person, is known as a “fact evaluator” or “fact discoverer”. The alleged facts are presented to the investigator through evidence and his job is to determine if any supposed event actually occurred. Their job is also to determine, based on the evidence, whether the accused is innocent or guilty. During a trial, the judge's job is to be a kind of arbitrator.
He or she will decide what evidence will be shown to the jury. The judge is impartial and is there to make sure that the trial is fair to both parties. The verdict of guilt or innocence in a jury trial must be unanimous. If they don't, it's called an undecided jury and the case must be retried.
When cases are tried before a jury, the judge continues to play an important role in determining what evidence can be considered by the jury. The jury is the one that determines the facts, but it only remains to determine the facts on the basis of legally admissible evidence. The judge instructs the jury on the legal principles or rules that must be followed to weigh the facts. If the jury finds the defendant guilty or responsible, it is up to the judge to sentence the defendant.
The judge ensures that proper procedures are followed and makes decisions on all issues related to the law in relation to the particular case. Because the jury does not decide these issues, many of the law-related discussions and decisions are made when the jury is not in the courtroom. Depending on your case, it's much easier to persuade ordinary people than it is to persuade judges, who are obviously trained to be impartial and set aside human emotions in the courtroom. If the jury finds the defendant guilty, then it is the judge's job to decide the appropriate sentence.
Jurors are more likely to misunderstand critical aspects of a case, such as the evidence, the burden of proof, or even the judge's instructions. One of the reasons for choosing a trial with a judge rather than a jury trial is that judges are not prejudiced and are significantly less inclined to let their emotions affect the outcome of a case. Now that you have a very basic understanding of how a trial works, let's look at the differences between a jury trial and a trial without a jury. As a result, trials with a judge take less time and can therefore be less expensive if you pay for a private lawyer.
In a trial with a judge, also known as a trial without a jury, the judge makes all the procedural and evidentiary decisions to determine if the defendant is guilty or not guilty.
