Opinion ID: 2085062
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant's Right to a Bench Trial

Text: Defendant argues that he should have had the option of a bench trial to alleviate the alleged prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity and consolidation of the murder and assault indictments. His argument fails. As noted, we find no prejudicial impact from the pretrial publicity, nor did any result from consolidation of the indictments. [6] Moreover, [t]he history of our jurisprudence reveals that the fundamental right is the right to a trial by jury  ( People ex rel. Rohrlich v Follette, 20 NY2d 297, 301 [1967] [emphasis in original]). This tenet is reflected in article I, § 2 of the New York State Constitution, which prohibits waivers of a jury trial in capital cases. Our State Constitution's ban on jury waivers in capital cases is long-standing and purposeful. Before 1938, no defendant in a criminal case was allowed to waive trial by jury ( see People v Cosmo, 205 NY 91, 96 [1912]; Cancemi v People, 18 NY 128, 137 [1858]). The 1938 Constitutionour present Constitutionallows bench trials in criminal cases, but pointedly preserves the prohibition in capital cases ( People v Page, 88 NY2d 1, 6 [1996]). The Bill of Rights Subcommittee to that Constitutional Convention drafted the provision, explaining that its determination to withhold the jury waiver right from capital defendants derived from the notion `that the Constitution will still not permit this choice to a defendant in a capital case, and regards such a prohibition against waiver as a measure for the protection of the defendant.' [7] Consistent with constitutional commands, CPL 320.10 excludes capital cases from the provisions that govern jury trial waivers. Moreover, there is no federal constitutional right to a bench trial ( see Singer v United States, 380 US 24, 36 [1965]). Thus, defendant was not entitled to one ( see also People v McIntosh, 173 Misc 2d 727 [Dutchess County Ct 1997]). [8]