My point still stands. For cases that go to trial, if they jury is just a pawn for prosecution, the defendants would choose a bench trial. They do not, so this argument does not hold water.
He was advised to do a bench trial.
The idea was the evidence was so strongly in his favor that only an idiot would find him guilty, and a judge was less likely to be an idiot than a jury.
It worked out splendidly. The trial didn’t even finish. The judge halted the trial half way through and “advised” the prosecution to drop charges, which they did.
This is of course not representative. But if I were ever in the same spot, I’d seriously consider a bench trial.
I know someone who recently took a bench trial. No evidence of a crime was presented. The closing argument was the defense was "There was zero, zip, zilch evidence of any crime committed, and no mention of the defendant by anyone." The judge found the defendant guilty and then retired the next day. It's on appeal. C'est la vie.
(OTOH I saw a judge take a bench trial on a crime they'd committed, and their buddy was the trier of fact. The first witness had barely stepped onto the stand when the defendant was pronounced not guilty. LOL)
They do, overwhelmingly. Plea bargaining accounts for almost 98 percent of federal convictions and 95 percent of state convictions in the United States.