Should defendants keep option of trial by judge instead of jury? Lawmakers question AG's bill

PROVIDENCE – Leading criminal defense lawyers implored state lawmakers not to "upend" the justice system by requiring a prosecutor’s consent for a trial before a judge instead of a jury.

"We do not have a problem in Rhode Island with the current system of jury trials and jury waivers of trials," Rhode Island Public Defender Collin Geiselman told the House Committee on the Judiciary on Thursday.

The legislation, submitted at the request of Attorney General Peter F. Neronha, would give the state the power to veto a defendant’s request for a bench trial.

The state law allowing an accused person to waive a trial by jury has been in place since 1929. The practice is also dictated by a state Superior Court rule of criminal procedure, instituted in 1972, that specifies that cases be tried by a jury unless the defendant waives a jury trial in writing in open court with the approval of the judge.

Matching bills in the House and Senate would change that by requiring state prosecutors to agree.

What motivated the legislation?

Neronha vowed to push for the change after Superior Court Judge Daniel A. Procaccini acquitted a Barrington dentist of assaulting a neighbor in a high-profile alleged hate-crimes case. The attorney general took his criticism of the bench-trial system, and the judge, to the social-media platform X and continued his campaign in a series of interviews.

Stephen Dambruch, chief of the criminal division, urged lawmakers to support the measure Thursday, emphasizing that the government’s consent is required in the federal system and in 31 other states, and he disputed that the proposal was aimed at a particular judge.

"It's about reforming the system to bring us in line with the majority of jurisdictions. .... It allows the government to have a say in the decision," Dambruch said.

State lawmakers question bill

Rep. Matthew S. Dawson, D-East Providence, a former prosecutor, said he found it hard to imagine state prosecutors ever consenting to a jury-waived trial.

Dambruch said that, perhaps, he could foresee a prosecutor agreeing in complex cases. "It doesn't mean we will object in every case," he said.

Rep. David Place, R-Burrillville, also questioned the bill.

"When the government literally has unending resources to prosecute somebody, if that defendant feels their rights are better protected by a bench trial, I don't think we should be getting into it," Place said.

Why victim advocacy groups support the legislation

Neronha found support Thursday from victim advocacy organizations, including the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence and Day One.

“Our justice system is centered around juries, and requiring consent of all parties to waive the jury is consistent with the principle that unanimous agreement of community members – rather than unelected judges – is generally required to render a criminal verdict,”  Melissa Carden, executive director of the coalition, wrote the committee.

“Defendants may elect bench trials for strategic purposes, to blunt the emotional impact of heinous crimes including sexual assault, hate crimes, etc. But the community has a right to weigh in on the guilt or innocence of peers, no matter how unpleasant the facts of the case, through a jury,” Peg Langhammer, executive director of Day One, said.

Lucy Rios, executive director of the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence, also voiced support for the bill.

“In order to help empower the survivor, and hold the abusive offender accountable in a meaningful way, the abuser must not be allowed to wield the same power and control dynamics within the criminal legal system. This legislation would take an important step in leveling the power dynamics between an abuser and a survivor of domestic violence, in a more equitable and just system where the victim has a voice in the effort to ensure community accountability,” Rios wrote.

Criminal defense and civil rights groups oppose the bill

Meanwhile, criminal defense and civil rights groups lined up in opposition.

The state affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union referenced the case that spurred Neronha to pursue the legislation as the perfect example of why some defendants opt to waive a jury trial.

“The charge involved an alleged hate crime, the type of charge that can generate deep instinctual emotions among jurors that can weigh against a criminal defendant. When a criminal defendant is a virtual pariah in his or her community, the right to seek a trial before a neutral magistrate can be just as important as their countervailing right to be tried before a jury of their peers,” Steven Brown, executive director, wrote.

Brown rejected suggestions that the legislation was about fairness, noting that special protections should be afforded defendants “when facing the might and power of the State and the potential loss of liberty” that would result from a criminal conviction.

Defense lawyer John F. Cicilline warned that, if enacted, the law could run afoul of people’s constitutional right to a speedy trial.

“[This] entire issue has surfaced because a judge carried out his duties in a constitutional manner and the Attorney General was unhappy with the result. Passage of the bill would be an affront to the judge who was doing what the law expected of him. … The Courts are not the Attorney General’s playground and should not be treated as if they were,” Cicilline said in a letter to the committee.

Would legislation worsen court backlogs?

Members of the defense bar cautioned, too, that the General Assembly would be treading in the domain of the courts and that if the legislation passed it would be in conflict with Superior Court rules.

They faulted the legislation for its potential to interfere with the efficiency and functioning of the courts, which already face backlogs from the COVID pandemic.

Geiselman looked to cases that received significant prejudicial, pre-trial media coverage that could inflame lay jurors or those in which a person's sanity is in question. Judges are better equipped, in some cases, to sort through complex or highly charged issues, he said.

“In those circumstances, Judges possess the expertise to sift through emotional biases and focus solely on the factual merits and legal principles,” Geiselman wrote.

“The state’s judiciary is widely recognized for its fairness, impartiality, and effectiveness. … Rhode Island’s commitment to a just legal system is commendable, and any legislative endeavors should align with the state’s proud tradition of a well-functioning and unbiased judiciary,” he continued.

Kara Hoopis Manosh, president of the Rhode Island Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, pushed back against the impetus for the legislation.

“Finally, it must be said that this organization does not agree with the public assertion that has led to the introduction of this bill – that certain judges are incapable of being fair during a jury-waived trial. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only do the statistics disprove such claims, but the public commentary (via social media) behind this bill is also insulting to the distinguished members of the bench and to the hardworking attorneys who are in the trenches every day trying to clear the backlog and deliver justice to the defendants and victims impacted by the pandemic,” Manosh said on behalf of the association.

This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: RI lawmakers question AG's office on jury-waiver bill