Would you prefer to have your guilt or innocence determined by a judge or jury? ?

Answer 1

When a person charged with a crime is innocent they opt for a judge (no jury) hearing. They want that determination of guilt or innocence made based on facts where they should prevail. When they are guilty they opt for a jury of people less educated, less accustomed to making completely objective decisions, and far more influenced by emotions and sympathy. They then need a good attorney who can put on a show to capitalize on that and deliver a defense based on emotion and sympathy and not facts.

Answer 2

Unless Anonymous is trying to get convicted they are rather confused. If you did it and you are trying to get off you are much better choosing a jury. It's a lot easier to get 1 of 12 people to say you didn't do it then convince a Judge who actually knows the law. 

Answer 3

It depends.  If your defense is that the law such as unreasonable search or miranda, wasn't followed, choose a judge.  If you are guilty of wrongdoing but think you can get a sympathetic jury that might understand, then jury.

Answer 4

Depends on the case, with a Judge you only need to convince one person with a jury you need to convince 12 people