I am not American so could be wrong. But I have heard that most trials there don't even have a jury by default and that they have to be requested by the defendant, otherwise it's just the judge who makes the call.
If that's true, then maybe it would be in Chris' best interests if he didn't have one.
The defendant essentially gets to choose between a bench or jury trial. A bench trial is just the judge. It is common in lower courts (misdemeanors and low grade felonies in jurisdictions that empower lower courts to hear felonies) to default to a bench trial. If you are dissatisfied with the outcome, you can appeal the decision to a higher court and request a jury or bench trial. It is very rare for low level cases like a DWI or low level larceny to receive a jury trial. It could happen but it would be exceedingly expensive and time consuming for everyone involved. It is accordingly unusual for a higher level felony to receive a bench trial. But, the accused could have a bench trial if he wanted, barring state rules to the contrary.
(Texas is a notable exception. You can demand a jury trial for a traffic ticket!)
If a decision is elevated above the trial courts (the vast majority of states have district and superior courts as trial courts, district being the lower court) you may appeal further to the appellate courts, where your case is heard by a panel of judges. The number of judges on these panels varies by state (as well as varies for feds). Beyond that, you are generally within the purview of your jurisdiction's supreme court, who is the final word... most of the time.
As a very general rule if you are facing a criminal offense and appeal a decision, you can be released either on bond or your own recognizance pending your superior court hearing date(s). Also very generally, the superior court decision tends to end in remand, and you are likely to remain in custody while your appeal works it's way through.
If you are dissatisfied with the state supreme court ruling, you can then take it up with the feds, who will follow a similar scheme of going from trial or administrative court to an appellate court to potentially an en banc hearing (where all of the judges in a district confer together) to the federal supreme court.
Bear in mind outside of the trial courts an appeal may be rejected- most are totally or nearly groundless. The courts are clogged with inmates with access to prison libraries writing petitions and demanding appeals because the cops didn't have "probably cause" or because they believe exculpatory evidence was withheld or some shit.
Bear in mind that even if an appeal is successful, that does not mean an immediate exoneration. The grounds may have just been that the trial was flawed or prejudiced for some reason, and the defendant may be remanded to local custody to await a new trial. I do not want to reveal my state but I was recently subpoenaed to testify in a case that was heard almost 5 years ago that ended in a conviction... the conviction was vacated because the appellate court decided that some questions the DA asked the expert witness, and the witness's answers, influenced the jury's opinion of the victim/witness too heavily, and gave her undue credibility... the defendant is now sitting in the county lockup after several years in prison. Good thing I keep good notes.
As I said in an earlier post, whatever other countries may think of the American justice system, you have a zillion opportunities for recourse at every outlet and all you need is a small doubt to defeat a charge.
