Opinion ID: 1296862
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: right to have a jury trial

Text: Appellant claims that he involuntarily waived his right to have a jury trial. The requisite inquiry on the adequacy of jury waiver is of a dual nature: (1) was the waiver express and (2) was it knowing, intelligent and voluntary. ... If a defendant is competent to stand trial, he is bound by his express waiver.... ... [T]he determination as to whether a jury waiver to be effective is expressly, intelligently, competently, and voluntarily made must be made in light of the unique circumstances of each case. Robbins v. State, 635 P.2d 781, 784 (Wyo. 1981). On the day of the trial, Appellant filed a Waiver of Trial by Jury which stated: The Defendant, Courtney J. Van Riper, hereby waive[s] trial by jury under W.R.Cr.P. 24(a). Defendant shows that he is unfamiliar with and has no knowledge of the procedure and rules for jury examination, peremptory challenges, alternates, selection, etc., and is unable to go forward. The district judge held a hearing in chambers. He offered to assist Appellant with jury selection and explained the process of exercising peremptory challenges and challenging jurors for cause. This exchange followed: THE COURT: Are you willing to waive it knowing all that, knowing that the court will help you in asking questions? MR. VAN RIPER: I do waive my right to a jury. My waiver is in writing; you granted it. THE COURT: Well, I just want to make sure that you understand that I'm allowing you to reinstate a jury, even though I allowed you to waive it. The state is here to try to get a jury that's unbiased. I would assure you that I would assist you in that regard. But to be fair to you, I cannot help you with peremptory challenges. Knowing that, what do you wish to do? MR. VAN RIPER: Let's proceed with this thing. THE COURT: Without a jury? MR. VAN RIPER: With all dispatch. The prosecutor did not object to a bench trial, and the district court granted Appellant's request to proceed. W.R.Cr.P. 23(a). Appellant does not claim that he was incompetent to stand trial; he claims that he was not capable of conducting his trial. Appellant had prior experience in the criminal justice system, and he had pleaded guilty on his own in federal court in at least one other case. Under the circumstances of this case, Appellant was bound by his express waiver. Robbins, 635 P.2d at 784.