The right to a jury trial is one of the most fundamental protections in the American legal system.

So why do so many defendants choose not to use it?

In this episode of Closing Arguments, criminal defense attorney John Razumich examines a difficult and often misunderstood reality: for many people facing criminal charges, going to trial can feel less like exercising a right — and more like taking a risk.

We begin with the foundation — the history and purpose of jury trials — and how shifts in the legal system over the past several decades have changed the stakes. From the expansion of law enforcement powers in the 1970s to the rise of statutes like RICO and increasingly aggressive prosecutorial strategies, the modern criminal system has evolved in ways that can dramatically impact a defendant’s decision-making.

The episode then turns to real-world examples, including cases where charge stacking, severe sentencing exposure, and evidentiary concerns created enormous pressure to avoid trial altogether. These are not just legal hypotheticals — they are situations where the difference between accepting a plea and going to trial can mean decades of a person’s life.

Finally, we ask the broader question: what does this mean for the justice system as a whole? Are these pressures a necessary part of maintaining order, or do they raise concerns about fairness and balance?

This episode of Closing Arguments explores the intersection of rights, risk, and reality — and why the decision to go to trial is often far more complicated than it appears.

Chapters:

0:00 - Introduction

2:15 - Busy days at Razumich & Associates

3:20 - A brief history of jury trials

7:28 - Rising plea agreements and mass incarceration

14:28 - The ever-changing role of the prosecutor

23:45 - The case of Patrick Thompson

34:12 - The case of Eli Burns

43:28 - The state is in the driver's seat

50:54 - How to contact Razumich & Associates

53:26 - Closing remarks