Court Opinion

ID: 9670443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:20:40.612682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:04.511719
License: Public Domain

*236Rogosheske, Justice
(dissenting).
I join my brother Otis and also dissent because I share his views concerning: (1) The underlying basis for our suggestion in State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 170 N. W. 2d 104 (1969), of a preference for submission to a jury on retrial; (2) our limitations in reviewing the trial judge’s denial of defendant’s request to waive a jury now rather than at the time it was made; (3) defense counsel’s recital of the compelling reasons for defendant’s knowledgeable request, especially those peculiar to the likely composition of a jury impaneled in Anoka County; and (4) the reasons expressed by the trial judge for the rejection of defendant’s requested waiver. In my opinion, the recorded reasons for rejection neither responsively answered the grounds upon which defendant’s request was based nor revealed an adequate understanding or appreciation of the role and function of defense counsel in pursuit of his efforts to adhere to the principles embodied in the A. B. A. Standards cited by my brother Otis which defense counsel, with admirable skill and faithfulness, sought to follow in protecting defendant’s legitimate interests, presumably without regard at the time for his personal views of defendant’s probable culpability or his subsequent reaction to the fairness of the trial or the propriety of the jury’s verdict. However debatable among members of the bench and bar the benefits of jury trials may be, I believe that granting defendant a retrial in this case will do no disservice to the efficient administration of criminal justice by encouraging trial judges to try criminal cases without a jury when requested by an accused with defense counsel’s approval.
Mr. Justice Knutson took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.