New Britain herald., 1925-04-13
OPTIONAL TRIALS B1 JTRY OR JUDGE

The fact that it is possible to try criminal cases in Connecticut With- out a jury if the defendant so de- sires has created considerable diS- c1ssion ill other states. Ill the nllndS of Americans generally criminal trials arc associated with juries, and the optional method in Connectlcu' has been regarded as rather unique
 Only in one other American state -AIarvland - does the optional method obtain, according to legal authorities. The defendant Ill these two states has the choice ot
 a furv trial or trial by judge; per
 sons on trial for murder usually
 choose to be tried by jury
 The Connecticut optional law dates
 hack no longer than 1921. Since
 inc law has been in effect about 'o
 nor cen, of the states criminal cases
 navc been tried by the court and 9o
 ncr cent by iuries, according to the clerk of court in Hartford Ol
 conrse. the 70 per cent of cases tried
 by judges have been lesser crimlna" finder the law the accused or HIS
 auor,,ov elects 10 be tried by the
 court. if so desired, at the tlne tne
 ,,oo is made, If such an election IS
 mn, made the clerk of the court ln-
 a,iros as to the wishes of the ac-
 r,sod and if the election is to oc
 ,r,od bv thccourt a notation to that
 offcct is made on the docket and
 inc information. If the accused or
 his attorney does not desire to O' tried hv the court--but prefers J urv tria,-no record is necessary '0 [ tbat effect and the accused Is give" : Il jury trial
 Tna record in Maryland has neef f more striking than in Connecoeu'
 n,oro than 90 per cent of the crlh'' $ inn, c,scs in Baltimore the last two Q ,.,rs having been tried befof' c fndpos in prrfercnce to jurieS' ] II ma foritv of defendants prefer trla s ,v ndges because it entails less 'N ncns., and such trials ae a rule ar h soccdier; the state also saves money y The systems of Connecticut an
 Maryland are not in opposition | F. ,ho federal constitution guaran'eeln l. ,,rv trials in criminal prosecutions d ne inc accused persons are given Il tho rigbt to choose jury trials if the le nr.,cr. There is no infringement ( ii he federal constitution when 1T 'd accused is given the privilege of a' is cepting a jury trial but chooses 'T'' to beeorc a judge instead
 in The 1.copold-Loeb trial in chiq's
 ,.,z different, the jury being al on .,,,rrsd after the pair pleaded FH' nd ,v. permitted thc luige to decide | he insanity plea, after hearing e'i'"n se so,aly concerned with the alleged .e- sanity of the cuIprits,
 'c- Thy systems in Connecticut al ns vsrvgsnd are not unique on | m- Tor.b American continent ho"e'' it similar system has been part ies t1s criminal jurisprudence in Can -li- 1a from time immemoriol, E>e ate aocn.ed person in Canada is '' of that "in the British Empire an is a,saa man can choose a jury trial he ,r.a, bafore a judge" winding 'n- with which do you prefer ten ,,o.a. ~,'.t ,o that effect The exporter zen in Canada has, been general that . ave rngtori,y m of those accused of ori'"i ca- orf@nses prefer a quick trial 6ef' out ~ o'' ,n9re rather than the delay ir no 5nnt to a jury trial and the au'
 a,ncnse Canadian jnrisprpde isie ,iso does not require formal Fr' 'm- jury in&e>gment. the police inLO'