Ohio prosecutors push mandatory jury trials

ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS

AP Legal Affairs Writer

COLUMBUS — Ohio pros­e­cu­tors say they’re not giv­ing up in their efforts to pass a law that would allow them to demand that crim­i­nal defen­dants undergo a trial by jury.

The pro­posal by the Ohio Pros­e­cut­ing Attor­neys Asso­ci­a­tion, which was before law­mak­ers this year and in the past, is aimed at sit­u­a­tions where defen­dants waive their rights to a jury trial and demand a judge hear the case instead.

Occa­sion­ally, pros­e­cu­tors believe a judge will not pro­vide a fair hear­ing and they want the abil­ity to demand a jury trial, said John Mur­phy, a lob­by­ist with the pros­e­cut­ing attor­neys association.

“The only time we run into prob­lem is when this par­tic­u­lar judge won’t give us a fair hear­ing for one rea­son or another,” Mur­phy said. “Some judges have par­tic­u­lar views on cases we dis­agree with.”

Sev­eral pros­e­cu­tors tes­ti­fied before House and Sen­ate com­mit­tees this year in sup­port of the mea­sure, which passed in the House but died in the Sen­ate ear­lier this month. It would apply only to seri­ous crimes.

“Pros­e­cu­tors and the vic­tims of crimes should have the same choices as the crim­i­nals,” Portage County Pros­e­cu­tor Vic­tor Vigluicci told the Sen­ate Judi­ciary Com­mit­tee ear­lier this year.

“In a time when we have finally come to rec­og­nize not only the rights of the crim­i­nally accused, but also the rights of the vic­tims of their crimes, giv­ing the vic­tims, through the State, some say in the use of a jury at trial seems only fair,” he said.

Pros­e­cu­tors note that more than two dozen states allow pros­e­cu­tors to request a jury trial, as does the fed­eral court system.

The Ohio State Bar Asso­ci­a­tion and numer­ous judges opposed the measure.

They said that while the Ohio Con­sti­tu­tion guar­an­tees a crim­i­nal defen­dant the right to a jury trial, it doesn’t require it.

They also say pros­e­cu­tors can already ask that judges with a per­ceived bias be removed from a trial. And they say the pro­posal could cost tax­pay­ers because of the added expense of more jury trials.

“Elim­i­nat­ing the right to a bench trial for those who are crim­i­nally accused would be con­trary to the fair and eco­nomic admin­is­tra­tion of jus­tice,” accord­ing to a Dec. 11 let­ter to the judi­ciary com­mit­tee from 34 Cuya­hoga County court judges.

Judges also say the pro­posal makes more sense in the fed­eral court sys­tem where judges are appointed for life and it’s harder to remove them from cases for bias.

The pro­posal would also apply to death penalty cases, where a three-judge panel some­times is bet­ter equipped to han­dle such com­pli­cated cases than a jury, which can be over­whelmed because of the nature of crimes in cap­i­tal cases, said state pub­lic defender Tim Young.

A finan­cial analy­sis of the bill by the non­par­ti­san Ohio Leg­isla­tive Ser­vice Com­mis­sion pre­dicted only a “min­i­mal” increase in costs to coun­ties of giv­ing pros­e­cu­tors the right to demand a trial by jury.

The com­mis­sion con­cluded “there will be very few cir­cum­stances in which a pros­e­cu­tor would want to demand a jury trial.”

Posted by AP News on Dec 26 2012. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS Feed. Comments can be made below.