Wiseman: Defendant in traffic case has no right to jury trial

Superior Court Associate Judge David A. Wiseman ruled yesterday that a defendant in a traffic case has no right to avail of a jury trial.

In denying defendant Joseph Santiago Castro’s request for a jury trial, Wiseman pointed out that a common law right to jury trial does not exist in the Commonwealth.

Wiseman also cited that Castro’s charges do not carry penalties mandating trial by jury under the statute.

The judge said the defendant cannot avail himself of the common law jury trial right rooted so deeply in U.S. jurisprudence because a provision of the Covenant “has firmly prevented such common law roots from anchoring in the CNMI.”

Court records show that Castro is charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol, reckless driving, following a vehicle too closely, and having an open container.

The case is currently set for bench trial.

The defendant, through assistant public defender Angela M. Krueger, demanded a jury trial pursuant to the “common law” jury trial right.

The government, through assistant attorney general Nancy Knox-Bierman, opposed this.

In his order, Wiseman said the question posed is whether the “common law” jury trial right extends to defendants in the CNMI, in addition to the criminal jury trial right provided under the statute.

As a preliminary matter, Castro is not entitled to a jury trial pursuant to the statute, the judge said.

The criminal jury trial right under the statute is reserved exclusively for defendants charged with a felony punishable by five years in prison or by a fine of more than $2,000 or both, he said.

Wiseman said that, since none of the charges Castro faces carries a maximum penalty exceeding a $2,000 fine or five years imprisonment, the defendant is not entitled to a jury trial.

However, the judge said, the court’s analysis cannot end here, because Castro, although acknowledging the inapplicability of the statute to his case, grounds his demand on his claim that he should be afforded a jury trial pursuant to the “common law” jury trial right.

Wiseman said the CNMI has elected to provide a jury trial right in criminal cases, but has limited that right to three classes of criminal cases: (1) those carrying punishment of five years imprisonment, (2) those carrying a fine exceeding $2,000, (3) or those carrying a combination of both five years imprisonment and a fine exceeding $2,000.

Defendant, however, argued that he is entitled to a jury trial pursuant to the statute, and the “common law” jury trial right recognized by U.S. courts under certain circumstances, which depends on the “seriousness” of the charge rather than the Constitutional guarantee.

Wiseman said that, although he agrees with Castro that charges of DUI and reckless driving are indeed serious because such activities are inherently dangerous to public safety, his arguments supporting a common law jury trial in the Commonwealth are unpersuasive.

Here, he said, the Legislature has spoken by providing a specific criminal jury trial right under the statute, to the exclusion of offenses that do not meet the minimum penalty threshold.