I think it would depend on the case. If my case hinged on precise interpretation of the statute or case law I'd probably choose a judge because they better understand legal complexities. If my case hinged on convincing someone that I was morally right even if I was guilty by the letter of the law I'd choose a jury trial.
Jury - for the reasons opposite of Colleen's. With a judge, if he's against you from the start, you're screwed. With a jury, you only have to make one person doubt your guilt, and you're set. Not that I would ever do anything illegal, but whatever.
Judge... Because what knowledge do a jury have of law or anything else that is applicable to my trial? I'd rather be have the judgement made by a person who knows what they are doing, like a judge.
Trial by Judge, because I would only have to convince one person my story is true... not a whole group.
jury cuz they don't know you even if the judge has never met you you still have a better chance:)
Jury, judges can be very biased, but not everyone in a group will be against you from the start.
Also, a Judge is typically more educated than most people that would be in the Jury.
i prefer teh scottish jury rules of 15 over the standard 12
Judge - it's easier to sway one person than twelve.