Singer v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1965 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawJury TrialWaiver of Jury TrialFederal Rules of Criminal ProcedureRule 23(a)jury trialbench trialwaiver

Facts

Petitioner was charged in federal district court with 30 violations of the mail fraud statute based on allegations that he used the mails to induce amateur songwriters to send him money for marketing their songs. On the opening day of trial, he offered in writing to waive a jury trial for the purpose of shortening the trial. The trial judge was willing to approve the waiver, but the government refused consent under Rule 23(a), which requires both court approval and government consent. Petitioner was then tried before a jury and convicted on 29 of the 30 counts.

Issue

Does the Constitution give a federal criminal defendant an absolute right to waive a jury trial and insist on trial before a judge alone, notwithstanding Rule 23(a)'s requirement of government consent and court approval? More specifically, is Rule 23(a) unconstitutional insofar as it conditions jury-trial waiver on the consent of the prosecution and the court?

Rule

The Constitution guarantees a federal criminal defendant the right to an impartial jury trial, but it does not confer or recognize a right to have the case tried by a judge alone. Accordingly, Rule 23(a) validly conditions a defendant's attempted waiver of jury trial on the consent of the government and the approval of the court as a reasonable procedural regulation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In federal district court in Denver, Nora Patel is charged with wire fraud. She files a written waiver of jury trial, explaining that the accounting issues are highly technical and that a judge will better understand them. The prosecutor refuses consent, and the judge orders a jury trial over Nora's objection.

If Nora argues that the Constitution gives her the right to insist on a bench trial whenever she believes it is strategically preferable, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that a federal criminal defendant has no constitutional right to insist on trial before a judge alone. Rule 23(a) may condition a jury-trial waiver on government consent and court approval. Nora's preference for a judge because the evidence is technical does not create a constitutional entitlement to a bench trial; her constitutional protection is an impartial jury trial.