The Seventh Handcuff of the Bill of Rights. The Seventh Amendment (Amendment VII) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. This amendment codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases, and inhibits courts from overturning a jurys findings of fact. An early version of the Seventh Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison, along with the other amendments to the Bill of Rights, in response to Anti-Federalist objections to the new Constitution. Congress proposed a revised version of this amendment to the states on September 28, 1789, and by December 15, 1791, the necessary three-quarters of the states had ratified as it. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the amendment on March 1, 1792. The Seventh Amendment is generally considered one of the more straightforward amendments of the Bill of Rights. Unlike many of the Bills provisions, the Seventh Amendment has never been incorporated (i.e. applied to the states), although almost every state voluntarily complies with such a requirement. United States v. Wonson (1812) established the historical test, which interpreted the amendment as relying on English common law to determine whether a jury trial was necessary in a civil suit. The amendment thus does not guarantee trial by jury in cases under maritime law, in lawsuits against the government itself, and for many parts of patent claims. In all other cases, the jury can be waived by consent of the parties. The amendment additionally guarantees a minimum of six members for a jury in a civil trial. The amendments twenty dollar threshold has not been the subject of much scholarly or judicial writing; that threshold remains applicable despite the inflation that has occurred since the 18th century. The first judicial opinion issued on the amendment came in United States v. Wonson (1812), in which the federal government wished to retry the facts of a civil case it had lost against Samuel Wonson. [18] Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, acting as a circuit court judge, ruled for Wonson, stating that to retry the facts of the case would violate the Seventh Amendment. Regarding the amendments phrase the rules of common law, Story wrote: Beyond all question, the common law here alluded to is not the common law of any individual state, (for it probably differs in all), but it is the common law of England, the grand reservoir of all our jurisprudence. It cannot be necessary for me to expound the grounds of this opinion, because they must be obvious to every person acquainted with the history of the law. Wonsons ruling established the historical test, which interpreted the amendment as relying on English common law to determine whether a jury trial was necessary in a civil suit. Applying the historical test in Parsons v. Bedford (1830), for example, the Supreme Court found that jury trials were not constitutionally guaranteed for cases under maritime law, an area in which English common law did not require juries. The Court further clarified this rule as a fixed historical test in Thompson v. Utah (1898), which established that the relevant guide was English common law of 1791, rather than that of the present day. In Galloway v. United States (1943), the Court permitted a directed verdict (a verdict ordered by a judge on the basis of overwhelming lack of evidence) in a civil suit, finding that it did not violate the Seventh Amendment under the fixed historical test.The Court extended the amendments guarantees in Beacon Theatres v. Westover (1959) and Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood (1962), ruling in each case that all issues that required trial by jury under English common law also required trial by jury under the Seventh Amendment. This guarantee was also further extended to shareholder suits in Ross v. Bernhard (1970) [6] and to copyright infringement lawsuits in Feltner v. Columbia Pictures TV (1998). In Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1996), the Court ruled that many parts of patent claims are questions of law rather than of fact, and that the Seventh Amendment guarantee of a jury trial therefore does not necessarily apply. Lawsuits against the federal government itself do not receive Seventh Amendment protections due to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. In Lehman v. Nakshian (1981), the Court ruled that citizens may sue the federal government only in cases where such right has been granted by act of Congress. Jury size The Supreme Court has held that the Seventh Amendments guarantee of a jury trial also guarantees a jury of sufficient size. While the Court found a six-member jury sufficient to meet the amendments requirements in Colgrove v. Battin (1973), it ruled in Ballew v. Georgia (1978) that a five-member jury violated the amendments intent. Regardless of size, the jurys verdict must be unanimous. Twenty Dollars Clause : Little historical evidence exists to interpret the Twenty Dollars Clause, which was added in a closed session of the Senate, and is often omitted in judicial and scholarly discussion of the amendment. A Harvard Law Review article described it as mysterious ... of shrouded origin and neglected for two centuries, stating that no one believes that the Clause bears on the right protected by the Seventh Amendment. According to law professor Philip Hamburger, this clause was intended to become obsolete by inflation, so that its application to more cases would be phased in gradually. Congress has never extended federal diversity jurisdiction to amounts that small. Under the current Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 U.S.C. §1332), the amount in dispute in diversity cases (which involve parties from different states) must exceed $75,000 in order for the case to be heard in federal court. However, civil cases may arise in federal court that are not diversity cases (e.g. in places like the District of Columbia that are federal jurisdictions), in which case the Twenty Dollars Clause may apply. What does this actually mean? You have the right to a trial by jury, the right to see your facts, if wronged buy another party. The right to a jury of The right size and that the process cannot or will not steamroller over either party. Another thing it does...if a jury arrives at a finding of fact, it prevents a judge from setting apart and setting aside the Jurys work. This happened many times in England, and the author of the Seventh Handcuff, James Madison, wanted to make sure at all costs that it was not occurring in the colonies, and we need to make sure that we protect this amendment safeguard it, and make sure the Seventh Handcuff remains strong. -SD
Posted on: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 20:32:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015