California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Ernst, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 238, 8 Cal.4th 441, 881 P.2d 298 (Cal. 1994):
This distinction between the requirement that a waiver of the right to a jury trial be express and the requirement that a plea of guilty be knowing and intelligent was recognized by this court in In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 81 Cal.Rptr. 577, 460 P.2d 449: "California law has long required that waiver of a jury trial be express. [Citation.] However, prior to Boykin v. Alabama, discussed infra, it was not necessary that acceptance of a guilty plea be preceded by a specific waiver of the right to a jury trial, or any other right (except the right to counsel, where none was present). Therefore, although [8 Cal.4th 446] the present record would be insufficient now to constitute a valid waiver of a jury trial, this does not necessarily preclude holding the plea of guilty to be acceptable under then existing California law." (In re Tahl, supra, 1 Cal.3d 122, 129, fn. 4, 81 Cal.Rptr. 577, 460 P.2d 449.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.