It's a well-known number. [1]

> but regardless of how true it is, I suspect the reason so many are imprisoned without having a jury trial is that they waived that right[1] and took a plea deal.

And why do they waive that right?

Because if they don't waive that right, they are subjected to the Lovecraftian bureaucratic horror-show[2] you pooh-poohed just a few lines down.

Take the plea deal, and serve two, or go to trial, flip a coin, and serve ten.

> I'm sidestepping the reason for why this might be so common.

You can't side-step it - you have to look at the system as a whole. It's true that most people can't ever afford to hire a competent lawyer, and it's true that going to trial with a public defender is lunacy, and it's also true that being found guilty at a trial is far, far worse than taking the guilty plea. This is by design - it's a check and balance that ensures most people don't exercise that right.

A right that for most of us only exists in theory is no right at all. It is a privilege, available for the privileged - in the sense that a feudal lord was privileged. It's justice, but only for those who can afford it. It's a complete perversion of equality under the law.

So, of course I'm mad as hell that this court ruled that the group of people most-favored by having the option for a jury trial receiving it, while we go on, and shrug our shoulders at the inaccessibility of it for the rest of us.

[1] https://innocenceproject.org/guilty-pleas-on-the-rise-crimin....

[2] Going to trial with a public defender certainly qualifies as one.