One key thing to understand about small claims court in Pennsylvania is, there’s never jury. Rather, just one person decides the case: a Magisterial District Judge (MDJ). However, this is not unusual. Many cases filed above the MJD level go “non-jury,” meaning, a judge decides all issues. What are the costs versus benefits?
Let’s start with the benefits.
Benefits of a “Non-Jury” Trial
1. Saving Time
Jury trials can take “forever,” or at least it can feel that way. But seriously, it takes time to impanel a jury because the voir dire process (picking a jury) involves a factual analysis of each potential juror, for bias, which takes time. Rule 220.3 in Pa describes exactly how fact-intensive voir dire can get:
Voir Dire
(b) Voir dire shall be conducted to provide the opportunity to obtain at a minimum a full description of the following information, where relevant, concerning the prospective jurors and their households:
(1) Name;
(2) Date and place of birth;
…
(15) Relationship, friendship or association with the parties, the attorneys and prospective witnesses of the particular case to be heard;
(16) Ability to refrain from using a computer, cellular telephone or other electronic device with communication capabilities in violation of the provisions of Rule 220.1; and
(17) Such other pertinent information as may be appropriate to the particular case to achieve a competent, fair and impartial jury.
Plus, a judge must rule on each objection to evidence, to determine whether it’s admissible or whether, if admissible, it would unfairly prejudice a jury. With a bench (or judge) trial, no such issue exists.
2. Saving Money
Bench trials involve considerably less attorney time. Plus, a judge hearing the case can tell you whether she needs to hear from an expert live (which is expensive) versus simply reading the expert’s report.
3. Understanding Dispute Resolution
While a jury may feel strongly for one side or another — translating into a large verdict — that does not necessarily bring closure to the dispute. Big verdicts — for one party or another — often result in protracted appellate litigation. A judge, on the other hand, will know to broach the subject of settlement via consent, if he can get the parties to talk to each other.
Drawbacks of “Non-Jury” Trial
1. Loss Of Impartiality
Everybody has a bias, including judges and magisterial district judges. Thus, having one person — versus twelve jurors — decide your case inherently works to the disadvantage of one of the parties to a case. But since any party can appeal a small claims court decision for any reason — or no reason — this particular “drawback” is not earth-shattering.
2. Inadmissible Evidence Gets Heard
Unlike what you see on TV, lawyers do not yell out the reason for their objections in court — for the jury to hear. It’s not allowed. In fact, in federal court, a judge will sanction a lawyer for doing so. Rather, when objecting to evidence, a lawyer simply says “objection!” then goes to “side-bar” with the judge, outside of the earshot of the jury, so the jury can hear neither the evidence nor the reason for the objection to it. Because once the jury hears the evidence, even if deemed inadmissible, you can’t “unring the bell” as the saying goes.
Only, in a bench trial, there’s no jury. So, the judge hears all the evidence and all the objections to it. For example, in PA, when a person injured in a car accident sues for money, it’s possible that her own failure to wear a seatbelt caused her injuries. Only, in PA, seat belt non-use is inadmissible and the jury won’t hear it. Only, in a bench trial, the judge hears everything: so he’ll know the injured party had not been securely belted — even if the evidence is deemed “inadmissible.”
Let’s Get to Work!
Contact a Pittsburgh attorney for any litigation claim or defense in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
412.342.0992
