As a result of my conversations with a great many number of people I've come to realize that most people in the United States do not understand what a bifurcated trial is. It is my hope on this page to reveal to you the details and implications of what a bifurcated trial is. It all begins with a position that the United States Supreme Court took very early on in regard to how the individual states are allowed to conduct a criminal trial. At the time it was decided that the federal government should not interfere with how a state conducts a criminal trial. They decided at that time not to interfere with the affairs of the individual state, unless the state in question violated the constitutional rights of an individual. This led most of the states to adopt a bifurcated trial system. In a bifurcated trial  the jury is not informed of the sentencing aspect of a guilty verdict. The reason for this is that it was believed at the time that a jury should not concern themselves with the aspect of the sentence, that their entire purpose was simply to determine guilt or innocence and that the function of sentencing was the purpose of the judge.

    Now at first glance this may seem to be quite proper, however as time has progressed and the laws and sentences have changed this is not the case anymore. Take for example a case that was related to me by an attorney. In this case this particular attorney was representing a woman who had attempted suicide. During her trial it became evident to all and sundry that this poor woman needed psychiatric help and that she wouldn't get psychiatric help if she was simply freed. Due to the fact that her two children were in the vehicle she was using to asphyxiate herself, she was charged with dangerous crimes against children. As a result she was facing two counts of dangerous crimes against children. Each carrying a 15 year sentence to be served consecutively. At the end of the trial when the jury was sent out to deliberate, their major concern was that she obtain psychiatric counseling. It was not their intention to send her to prison. The jury did not believe that she would obtain psychiatric counseling if they returned a verdict of  not guilty. They were operating under the false assumption that if they declared her not guilty that she would be allowed to walk freely without getting any help. Consequently they decided to find her guilty so that she would get the psychiatric help the she desperately needed. What this jury did not realize however was the consequences of returning a guilty verdict for dangerous crimes against children. It's 17 years per count in the state of Arizona. As a result of the jury's guilty verdict which was solely motivated out of compassion for the woman she received a 34 year sentence in prison. As a result psychiatric counseling became a moot point, because she is now spending the rest of her life there. In this case the jury was not aware of the consequences of their actions and this lack of awareness is supported by the law by the use of a bifurcated trial system. I believe that everyone should be aware of the consequences of their actions, especially a jury and the fact that the law encourages this lack of awareness is unconstitutional and does not support a fair trial by jury, or the right to due process of law. How would you like to serve on a jury where you are not permitted to know the consequences of your actions?

    Take for example the law that I'm charged with. The jury in my trial will never be allowed to know that the sentencing for the crime that I'm charged with will run 17 years per count and that each count equals a file and that the sentence is served consecutively, and not simultaneously. The jury will never be allowed to know that I could spend 255 years in prison for the crime that I'm charged with and that to tell the jury of this is a violation of law. This is what a bifurcated trial is all about and it amounts to being charged with the same crime 15 different times even though it may have only occurred once, which is a violation of constitutional law. For example take a drug dealer who was arrested with 20 bags of a controlled substance. Under constitutional law it is not permissible to charge him with 20 counts because that would be trying someone more than once for the same crime. The police caught him one time with 20 bags of a controlled substance which under the law is one count. In regard to the law that I'm charged with this is not the case and as a result I'm charged with 15 counts even though they may have occurred on the same day. The entire purpose of this is to put a person in prison for the rest of their life because the judicial system in America is not interested in whether a person is actually guilty or not, they just want to get rid of people. This is what the dangerous crimes against children law does and nobody gives a damn about the people charged with this law because it's dangerous crimes against children and that settles it. This is a violation of my constitutional rights and the right to due process of law. This practice should be abolished nationwide.