If you want to know what goes into courtroom decision-making when the pressure is on, you’ll want to hear this one.

Welcome back to Lawyer Talk! I'm Steve Palmer, and in this episode, I’m giving you an inside look at a recent trial I just finished—one that didn’t have a jury.

Instead, my client and I made the tough decision to waive his right to a jury trial, choosing to have a judge decide his fate. I’ll walk you through exactly why I rarely take cases in front of just a judge, what made this case unique, and the careful reasoning behind our strategy—especially when there are tricky legal technicalities involved. I’ll also share some thoughts on what it really means to get a fair trial, whether it’s with a jury or a judge.

Three key takeaways:

• Strategic Choice Matters: Opting for a bench (judge-only) trial can be the right path when a case hinges on a nuanced, technical legal issue that a jury might not fully grasp.
• Deep Client Collaboration: The decision isn’t made lightly. It involves honest conversations about risks, pros, and cons, making sure the client is 100% involved all the way.
• Presentation Still Counts: While the theatrics are toned down for a judge, it’s crucial to present evidence clearly and treat the judge as the "fact finder"—advocating with the same intensity as if speaking to a jury.

Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!

Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.

Recorded at Channel 511.

Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.

Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.

He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.

Steve has unique experience handling numerous high-publicity cases that have garnered national attention.

For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense.

Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law

Mentioned in this episode:

Circle 270 Media Podcast Consultants

Circle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

All right, Steve Palmer here again, Lawyer Talk podcast. And you can check us out@LawyerTalkPodcast.com today, I'm going to talk about a trial I just had. In fact, I finished it this week, and it was a trial without a jury, meaning my client waived his right to trial by jury and he instead elected to try the case to a sitting judge. I think I've touched. Bay, I've touched on this a few times, but I wanted to. It's fresh on my mind. So I wanted to talk about what steered the decision to waive my client's right to trial by jury. First of all, I hardly ever do that.

I almost always in my career, like, of all the trials I've had, and I've had lots of them, I can count maybe on one or two hands at the most, how many have been to a judge and not a jury. And I'm talking about felony trials or trials where you have a right to a trial by jury. Not all, like traffic offenses and such, they always go to a judge. But I'm talking about a felony trial where you have an absolute constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to have trial by jury. Why, pray tell, then would we ever not exercise that right? When is one more advantageous over the other? Well, it's sort of like we hear the famous quote. Like, I don't. I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. I'll try to.

I'll try to explain what I mean. The case that I had, I'm not going into detail, but I will say this. It had very specific legal nuances. Criminal charges have elements, and by elements, we mean parts. So you have to prove that it was the defendant who did it. You have to prove the defendant did it knowingly. You have to prove whatever act the defendant did. And then typically, you have to prove something like venue or that it happened in a particular county.

So in the case that I just tried, I'm still waiting on a verdict from the judge. But in the case that I just tried, there is a very narrow legal nuance on one of those elements that was very difficult. I'll put it this way. It sounds like a technicality, but it's a huge deal. And when I say technicality, I use that in a term that we would use it in the real world. Oh, that guy got acquitted. He was found not guilty on a technicality, or they let him go on a technicality. Sometimes I hear that, and I think, well, you know, the technicality was because the government violated my client's Fourth Amendment rights.

That's hardly technical. But this is a very technical legal issue. The prosecutor had to prove some nuance because of the way the statute was written, the way the law was written, that it didn't make much sense. So even I would agree that the statute probably, if the General assembly here in Ohio wanted to, should. If the General assembly had it back, they'd probably rewrite it. And they probably should rewrite it. But they didn't. And the prosecutor still has to prove that little technical element.

And in the context of my case, I didn't think they could do it. I decided then that having a judge decide that was better because what I didn't want to do is risk having a jury not understand that nuance, or even if they did convict my client anyway, because they would just say, well, that's stupid technicality. We don't care about that. We're gonna find this guy guilty because that's what should happen. And I'm not saying that's what should happen, but that's what I was worried a jury might do. So we had a very lengthy, detailed conversation with our client. We kicked around all the options about what are the pros and cons of having a jury decide the case. And there was another charge that, frankly, I was about even on 50, 50, whether it was better for a judge or jury.

But in the end, I thought maybe that other charge is probably a little better for a jury. But in balance, we chose to waive trial by jury on both. So it ended up we're waiting on a verdict, and it went quite well. I think at the end of the day, our team, we all looked at each other while we're waiting on this verdict and said, you know what? We made the right decision on this. Even if we get an adverse verdict, we still feel like we made the right decision. So there are times, folks, where you don't exercise your constitutional right to trial by jury, but you still exercise your right to trial. And I tip my hat to the judge here, but because the judge did a great job, treated it like it was a jury trial, we presented our evidence like it was a jury trial. Maybe some fewer theatrics.

You know, there are things we would do in front of a jury. That judge is going to sort of roll her or his eyes at and say, come on, guys, I know the drill. You don't need to do that in front of me. But, you know, in large part, she says, you know, treat me like a jury, guys. I'm the fact finder. You know, convince me. And that's what we did. So maybe I'll do a follow up and let you know how it worked out.

Either way, I do feel like my client got a fair trial. I feel like we did everything he could, even though it was only a court trial or a judge trial, not a jury trial. You got a question? You got a topic? Want me to break down? Shoot it to us in the comments. Check us out@LawyerTalkPodcast.com where we are off the record, on the air till now.