The murderer of nursing student Laken Riley has been found guilty. Here’s why.

Jose Antonio Ibarra was found guilty Multiple murder charges filed Wednesday in Georgia’s February slaying nursing student Laken Riley. Ibarra was immediately sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole; he was also given consecutive sentences for lesser offenses such as aggravated assault with intent to rape and “peeping on Tom.”

Riley’s murder became an event The political rally cry at this summer’s Republican National Convention because Ibarra entered the country illegally in 2022. However, despite all the political debates, the outcome of this case was never left in doubt.

The verdict would be guilty.

His sentence would be life without parole.

From a defense perspective, this was a hopeless situation. The defense did the best it could with the bad facts. He knew he would almost certainly lose. This is probably why a bench trial (consisting of judges only) was requested instead of a jury trial.

Defense attorneys generally prefer jury trials to court trials. One reason for this is mathematics. It only takes one in 12 for the jury to deadlock and avoid conviction. In the case of a judge, there is only one “juror,” so that chance is reduced by 11. There are only a few reasons why defense attorneys may waive a defendant’s constitutional right to a jury trial. Perhaps the case involves unusually complex legal issues that a jury may have difficulty understanding. But even then, complexity can benefit the defense: If jurors don’t understand the prosecution’s case, they may not find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Ibarra case involved no complex legal issues.

Defense attorneys may alternatively push for a bench trial because the evidence against a defendant is both overwhelming and terrifying. That’s probably what happened here too. The defense had no chance in front of the jury.

But apparently the judge had no chance either, because he was convicted anyway. Still, the arraignment was a good call by the defense. Saving the judge from a meaningless jury trial, along with the possibility of parole, might have been Ibarra’s best shot at life. Although you probably won’t see it written down 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,” which is harsher sentencing if a defendant opts for a three-week jury trial rather than a four-day judge-only trial.

Of course, the judge in the Ibarra case didn’t give him a break – jury or no jury. To be fair, Athens-Clarke County Superior Court Judge H. Patrick Haggard, who presided over the hearing, didn’t have much to decide. Judges normally have multiple sentencing options. Criminal laws often impose a mandatory minimum or statutory maximum sentence, leaving much in between. For example, when FTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried found guilty Last November, federal prosecutors who masterminded a massive fraud asked the judge to sentence “SBF” to 100 years in prison. He defended it for 6½ years. It is often a difficult task for a judge to decide what the appropriate sentence is, considering minimum sentences, maximum sentences, and sentencing guidelines. (Bankman-Fried is serving a 25-year prison sentence.)

Not in this case.

In this case, the judge had only two options for a murder conviction: life without the possibility of parole and life with the possibility of parole. He chose life without her. No doubt heartbreaking testimonies from Riley’s loved ones helped justify this decision.

The judge also sentenced Ibarra to consecutive rather than concurrent sentences. Concurrent sentencing is much better for the defendant. In other words, he serves all his sentences at the same time. Three concurrent 20-year sentences mean the defendant serves 20 years in prison. Three consecutive 20-year sentences are the equivalent of 60 years behind bars. Under Georgia law, concurrent sentences are the default, but the judge here felt that concurrent sentences — no less than life sentences — were not sufficient punishment. This provides the best look at the judge’s opinion of this defendant.

Sometimes the defense attorney is given a truly terrible, 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.