Amendment VI of the U. S. Constitution states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury....” It does not say: “may
enjoy.” It does not say: “if the accused chooses.” It does not say: “unless the accused
declines.” It does not say: “if the judge agrees.” It does not say: “unless the Supreme Court says otherwise.” It says that there shall be a jury trial.
Everyone in the criminal legal system knows that if a defendant declines a jury trial, it is
because his lawyer thinks or knows that his client is guilty. It is no longer possible for the
judge to be impartial.
The reason a defendant’s lawyer declines a jury trial is because he hopes to win the case in one of three ways:
1. He has some obscure legal argument that the jury (and maybe even the judge and/or prosecutor) do not understand.
2. The judge owes the defendant’s lawyer something. The lawyers and the judge all know
each other and have opinions, grudges, and obligations with each other.
3. The defense lawyer or the defendant may be in a position to help the judge’s career if he wins.
This is particularly true if the defendant holds a relevant government job.
Consider the case of the killing of Sean Bell. He was killed by police on his wedding day. His
bride-to-be received his corpse as a wedding present. The incident is described in detail at:
Wikipedia -
Sean Bell Shooting Incident “The Sean Bell shooting incident took place in the New York City borough of Queens on November 25, 2006, in which one Latino and two African-American men were shot at a total of fifty times by a team of both plainclothes and undercover NYPD officers (two of whom were themselves African-American), killing one of the men, Sean Bell, on the morning of his wedding day, and severely wounding two of his friends.[1] The incident sparked fierce criticism of the police from some members of the public and drew comparisons to the 1999 killing of Amadou Diallo.[2] Three of the five detectives involved in the shooting went to trial [3] on charges ranging from manslaughter to reckless endangerment, and were acquitted.[4]” (see the web page for references).
The three detectives involved in the shooting were indicted by a grand jury for
manslaughter, reckless endangerment, and assault. They waived a jury trial. The bench trial started on March 16, 2007. All three detectives were found not guilty of all charges by Justice Arthur J. Cooperman.
Apparently the police department did not agree with the judge’s decision. Although the detectives were acquitted, the three of them and their commanding officer were fired or forced to resign on March 24, 2012.
If there had been a jury trial, the detectives were likely to have been found guilty of something"probably not first degree murder, but at least criminal negligence. However, even it did
find the police not guilty, its verdict would have been more credible.
On the other hand the judge desperately needs the police to protect him. They may save his life. There are lots of ex-criminals in the county that would like to kill him.
In a courtroom trial, there is only one impartial participant. That is the jury.
Julian Heicklen is a retired Chemistry Professor from Penn State University. He has been a libertarian activists for many years, has spent countless hours on the steps of court buildings handing out FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association) information, as well as being an advocate for marijuana legalization. He has been arrested and incarcerated many, many times for his efforts to educate the public of government corruption, and fled to Israel on May 22nd, 2012 as a political exile and was granted Israeli citizenship at customs. Visit his webpage at TyrranyFighters.Com and Facebook. 
Feature Article • More about 
