Are all US (criminal) court cases jury cases? Must be noted that this is only true for the US and other common law states, a lot of countries do not have or have only very limited notions of juries.
In the US, if either the prosecution or defendant want a jury then there is a jury trial. In practice this means almost all criminal trials are jury trials. As an added note, juries are perceived to be dull witted and easily deceived compared to a judge with years of experience. On the other hand, many judges are elected so they may worry about how their decisions will look to the public, the public generally hates judges who do not convict (because tv tells them everyone is guilty). Other judges can be political appointees with strong opinions.
So each party in a case decides whether or not to have a jury based on these points.
To a limited extent, attorneys can ask to change judges. Judges are embarrassed when they are "papered" this way so this provides pressure not too be absurdly biased.
And finally, there are a few differences in laws and huge differences in both judges and jury around the US both in opinions and education level. Dare I say this is why patent cases all end up in East Texas.
On the other hand, many judges are elected so they may worry about how their decisions will look to the public, the public generally hates judges who do not convict (because tv tells them everyone is guilty).
I noticed this about 20 years ago. Campaign ads for judges usually focused on how "tough on crime" they were as opposed to how "fair and trustworthy" they were.
I lost what little respect I had for the legal system when I watched a prosecutor argue that two convicted men should remain in prison and one should remain on death row despite newly discovered exculpatory DNA evidence and new evidence of police and jury misconduct because "The system" needed finality.
