John Adams described the place of the jury in the system of government:
“As the Constitution requires that the popular branch of the legislature should have an absolute check, so as to put a peremptory negative upon every act of the government, it requires that the common people, should have as complete a control, as decisive a negative, in every judgment of a court of judicature.”
No Provision for Civil Jury Trial in Original Constitution
The Constitution as submitted to the states for ratification contained a provision for jury trials in criminal cases in Article III, clause 3. The Constitution did not provide for the traditional jury trial in civil cases. During the ratification process, opponents of the Constitution pointed out this deficiency, and proponents indicated that an Amendment would be introduced in the First Congress to address this issue.
In 1789, James Madison introduced 12 amendments to fulfill the promise of the Constitution’s proponents. Ten were ratified in 1791 becoming the Bill of Rights. The Seventh Amendment guaranteed the right to a jury trial in civil cases.
The Seventh Amendment
The text of the Seventh Amendment is as follows:
“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
Civil Trials versus Criminal Trials
Civil cases in court are to settle disputes generally between private parties, though they also include claims for money by citizens against the government or by the government against citizens. Money damages are the only remedy available in a civil suit. The Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury trial in Federal Court in civil cases. It does not address the issue of civil juries in state courts.
Criminal trials determine if an individual has committed an act prohibited by law and the parties are the government against the defendant. Penalties include not only the possibility of money damages (fines), but also a range of restrictions upon freedom. If the possibility of imprisonment exists, a case is considered criminal.
Suits at Common Law versus Suits at Equity
The Constitution organized the government, providing power to act in certain areas and restrictions on actions in others. It is not the only basis of law for the United States. The Common Law of England in effect at the adoption of the Constitution continued in force after ratification. The Common Law was built upon a tradition of judicial decisions and these decisions defined the types of cases that were traditionally decided by juries, and reserved other types of decisions for judges. The Seventh Amendment maintained this distinction.
Decisions that were reserved for judges were considered a different area of law, known as Equity. These types of cases included areas where parties were ordered to do or refrain from doing something (an injunction). Equity covered other issues including Family Law and Probate. The Rules of Equity followed the precedents of prior decisions, but principally the guiding force for the judge was to do what was fair and just. Most areas of what was formerly known as Equity have been addressed by statute, but remain within the province of judges and not juries.
Common Law Role of Juries Continues Today
The Common Law role of the jury was to determine the facts of a case, by deciding what evidence to believe or not to believe. The Seventh Amendment preserved this role as it existed in England in 1791, and that basic principle remains in place today. At Common Law, judges were able, in extraordinary circumstances able to set aside or modify jury decisions and that legal authority continues to exist today as well.
The jury is to determine the facts and make a decision based upon the law. The jury is instructed on the law by the judge and it is from the judge’s instructions that they are to apply the law to the facts.
It is of note, that while in civil cases a judge may modify a jury’s verdict, in a criminal case, a jury finding of ‘not guilty” cannot be altered by the judge. This is part of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against double jeopardy.
David J. Shestokas - Mr. Shestokas is a former prosecutor & writes on the Constitution & legal issues for the Save America Foundation & Suite 101.
Join the Conversation