We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: THE NORTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZES THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL FOR NONCRIMINAL TRAFFIC OFFENSES IN RIEMERS V. ESLINGER.
- Authors
WELTE, PETER
- Abstract
The right to a jury trial is one of the most important of constitutional rights. Practically speaking, exercising that right consumes both the time and resources of citizens and the judicial system. It is well-established that an accused is not entitled to a jury trial when charged with a petty offense. Permitting a jury trial in petty offenses would bottleneck an already burdened court calendar, and the cost-benefit relationship of a jury trial in petty offenses is untenable. Accordingly, there are multiple offenses for which an accused is entitled to a hearing in front of a judicial officer, but not a hearing rising to the level of a jury trial. For example, a citizen accused of violating highway speed limits is entitled to an administrative hearing for that violation, but is not entitled to a jury trial. The right to a jury trial, therefore, involves a delicate balance between the nature of the right and the level of the offense. A recent North Dakota Supreme Court decision directly affects that delicate balance. This essay examines that decision.
- Subjects
ACTIONS &; defenses (Law); JURY trials; CIVIL rights; JUSTICE administration; CONTRAVENTIONS (Criminal law); TRAFFIC violations -- Cases; NORTH Dakota. Supreme Court
- Publication
North Dakota Law Review, 2010, Vol 86, Issue 3, p505
- ISSN
0029-2745
- Publication type
Essay