Should all legal cases require a jury trial and should the defendant and prosecutor/plaintiff be required to agree on the venue?

[Dargil]

And either does not occur, should a "mistrial" be the mandated?

[OlderAndWiser]

No, and no.

JUDGE VS. JURY: Jury trials are relatively expensive compared to having your case decided by a judge. Criminal defendants who face the possibility of incarceration have the right to a jury trial. Parties to a civil case in which the plaintiff seeks a money judgment in excess of the small claims limit ($8,000 here in Florida). Cases in which the plaintiff seeks a non-monetary judgment (e. g., injunction) are never decided by a jury. Imagine requiring a jury trial in every small claims case, every eviction, every divorce; it would never work.

VENUE: I am driving in my hometown in Florida and I am struck by a vehicle driven by a Nevada resident. I am injured and want to file suit. Why should I need the Nevada resident's permission to file suit in Florida? What is convenient for the other party is Nevada, but the case has no connection to Nevada and why should I be inconvenienced by being required to file the suit in Nevada? And what if the at-fault driver was from Germany or Egypt?

[Sachem]

Under the Anglo-Saxon common law there were courts of equity where judges made fair & equitable rulings in order to maintain social peace (at least this was true in theory). Our Founding Fathers, however, guaranteed that we would have the right to a jury trial in any contest involving a stake of $20 or more ($20 could well have been a yearly earning in those days). Thus, the common law right of a jury trial is entrenched in the US Constitution:

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

I would caution against mandating a jury trial in all such cases, especially where it would be more convenient or equitable to have a magistrate (such as a justice of the peace) to solve the controversy. As for venue, judicial procedure rules are already in place and generally do not need to be altered. However, I would allow procedural flexibility in order to insure that justice can be promoted for all concerned.

[Anonymous]

No one would ever go to trial because they would just disagree forever intentionally to get out of it.

I don't think everything needs a jury. Besides, with the various appeals available, even those instances end up being a jury of different judges and groups of judges.

[Kelley1]

Defendants and plaintiffs should be allowed to demand a trial by jury.

[BadApple69]

No. You are complicating an already complicated system. And in most cases you can request a jury trial. But in many cases it’s ok to let a judge decide the case.
And no two lawyers will ever agree to a venue change in location.

[AviatorTom]

Not needed. A jury trial is the default, unless the defendant requests a trial by judge. If the defense or prosecution doesn't like the venue, they can ask the court for a change of venue, which is often granted.

[DrPepper12]

NO WAY!! The system would collapse. Gotta have en banc trials.

[Dongie]

I don't know. But I know one thing my dad said 50 years ago. "Judges have to much power!"

[msc545]

Are you aware of how awkward and expensive that would be?