He didn’t really have a right to a jury trial. He was charged with what is known as a “petty offense” with no exposure to serious punishment, and most jurisdictions do not require juries for these cases. I believe a “petty offense” is defined as any charge where the maximum penalty is a six-month jail sentence.
That argument has been made many times by those that railroaded the Sheriff. It is common practice and codified in Federal cases and probably some states. However, I do not know where the Due Process and Jury of Peers exemption for 'petty' offenses appears in the U.S. Constitution.
When it comes to powers of the State versus an Individual it is the State that is limited by the Constitution regardless the 'inconvenience' of mounting a jury trial.
Something that is 'petty' is not pursued by the full force of the Federal Government UNLESS it is political -- Political witch hunts are something jury nullification would normally check.
In summary, IF the Feds were required to uphold Due Process and Trial by Peers when those charged demanded THEN maybe the Feds would not pursue as many 'petty' matters and many witch hunts would be prevented?
“He didn’t really have a right to a jury trial.”
Amendment Six to the US Constitution: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;”
All means every.