Jose Antonio Ibarra was convicted on multiple counts of murder Wednesday in the February killing of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley. Ibarra was immediately sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, along with other consecutive sentences for lesser crimes, including aggravated assault with intent to rape and “peeping Tom.”
Riley’s murder became a political rallying cry at this summer’s Republican National Convention because Ibarra entered the country illegally in 2022. But for all the political controversy, the outcome of this trial was never in doubt.
The verdict was going to be guilty.
The sentence was going to be life without parole.
Generally, defense attorneys prefer jury trials to bench trials. One reason is math.
For the defense, this was a hopeless case. The defense did the best it could with bad facts. It almost surely knew it was going to lose. That’s probably why it requested a bench (judge-only) trial instead of a jury trial.
Generally, defense attorneys prefer jury trials to bench trials. One reason is math. With a jury, it takes only one out of 12 to deadlock and avoid a conviction. With a judge, there’s only one “juror,” so those chances decrease by 11. There are only a few reasons defense attorneys will waive a defendant’s constitutional right to a jury trial. Perhaps the case involves unusually complex legal issues that a jury might have trouble understanding. But even then, complexity can benefit the defense: If jurors don’t understand the prosecution’s case, they can’t find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Ibarra case involved no complex legal issues.
Defense attorneys might alternatively push for a bench trial because the evidence against a defendant is both overwhelming and horrific. That’s likely what happened here. The defense had no chance with a jury.
But it apparently had no chance with the judge, either, since he was convicted anyway. Still, the bench trial was a good call by the defense. Saving the judge from a pointless jury trial might have been Ibarra’s best chance at life with the possibility of parole. While you probably won’t see that written in any rules or law books, in my experience as a defense attorney, judges (and prosecutors) appreciate defendants who don’t waste the court’s time. Sometimes a bench trial can help avoid the “trial tax” — the harsher sentencing when a defendant opts for a three-week jury trial instead of a four-day judge-only trial.
Of course, in Ibarra’s case, the judge cut him no breaks — jury or no jury. In fairness, Athens-Clarke County Superior Court Judge H. Patrick Haggard, who presided over the trial, didn’t have that much to decide. Normally, judges have a lot of sentencing options. Criminal statutes often provide for a mandatory minimum or a statutory maximum sentence, leaving a lot in between. For example, when FTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried was convicted of masterminding a massive fraud last November, federal prosecutors asked the judge to sentence “SBF” to 100 years in prison. His defense argued for 6½ years. It’s often a challenge for a judge to determine what is an appropriate sentence while considering minimum sentences, maximum sentences and sentencing guidelines. (Bankman-Fried is serving a 25-year sentence.) Not in this case. In this case, the judge had only two options for the murder convictions: life without the possibility of parole and life with the possibility of parole. He chose life without. Undoubtedly the heartrending testimony of Riley’s loved ones helped justify that decision. The judge also hit Ibarra with consecutive sentences instead of concurrent sentences. A concurrent sentence is much better for a defendant. It means he serves all his sentences at the same time. Three concurrent 20-year sentences mean a defendant serves 20 years. Three consecutive 20-year sentences equals 60 years behind bars. Under Georgia law, concurrent sentences are the default, but the judge here felt concurrent sentences — for life sentences, no less — weren’t sufficient punishment. This provides the best glimpse into the judge’s opinion of this defendant. Sometimes defense counsel just gets handed a truly awful, unwinnable case. The defense’s choice of a bench trial not only saved the state the resources of a wasted jury trial; it also likely avoided unnecessarily prolonging this traumatic experience for the victim’s family.
