Bill of Rights Is One

¶ … Bill of Rights is one of the important ten amendments that became part of the Bill of Rights in 18th century. This article is commonly known as the seventh amendment which grants citizens a right to jury trial in civil cases according to common law procedures. This ninth article states:

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.

Bill of Rights has a long and interesting history and so does the ninth article. Its beginnings date back to 1787 when Mr. Williamson of North Carolina felt the need to include a provision on jury trial. He "observed to the House that no provision was yet made for juries in Civil cases and suggested the necessity of it." Originally some members at the Convention felt it was enough to simply make amendment to Article 3, Section 2 to grant right to jury trial and to ensure that "a trial by jury shall be preserved as usual in civil cases." However there was not enough support for this proposal and it was thus rejected. It was found to be an extremely important right that demanded separate provision in Bill of Rights and was thus included in the first Madison's proposal to the Congress.

The ninth article which is also known as the Seventh Amendment has always been used by the Supreme Court in the same manner as "existed under the English common law when the amendment was adopted." The precise interpretation of this article grants citizens the right to "a trial by a jury of twelve men, in the presence and under the superintendence of a judge empowered to instruct them on the law and to advise them on the facts and (except in acquittal of a criminal charge) to set aside their verdict if in his opinion it is against the law or the evidence." It has been unanimously accepted that under this provision, the verdict of the jury is to be treated as final. The only indirect changes made to the article came first during Colgrove v. Battin, when Court decided that under this article, it was permissible to have a jury consisting of six persons instead of twelve. The Court argued that "the Framers of the Seventh Amendment were concerned with preserving the right of trial by jury in civil cases where it existed at common law, rather than the various incidents of trial by jury."

There have been some other changes made in interpretation of this article and some distinction has been made between Court and jury to divide tasks between the two appropriately. According to the seventh amendment, the main purpose of the article is protection of "the common law distinction between the province of the court and that of the jury, whereby, in the absence of express or implied consent to the contrary, issues of law are resolved by the court and issues of fact are to be determined by the jury under appropriate instructions by the court." To make this distinction clearer, the amendment now calls for reference to common law as it existed in England at the time when this article was promulgated. It is believed that those matters which were originally decided by the jury would still be decided by the jury and those that were handled by the judge would be decided by the Court today. It is also suggested that when new laws or rights come into the fore: "the right of action should be analogized to its historical counterpart, at law or in equity, for the purpose of determining whether there is a right of jury trial."

The right can be waived by the parties themselves. The parties may submit the case to the jury and ask for waiver of their right to a jury. This can be done by presenting a statement of facts to the court. Congress had provided for waiver of right before Federal rules were adopted and had allowed "for the trial of issues of fact in civil cases by the court without the intervention of a jury, only when the parties waive their right to a jury by a stipulation in writing." Even after the adoption of Federal Rules, this right is still granted but there is a specific procedure to follow.

The cases that come under the coverage of this article are the ones recognized as rights and remedies under common law. The amendment thus allows right to jury in those cases which involve "rights and remedies peculiarly legal in their nature, and such as it was proper to assert in courts of law and by the appropriate modes and proceedings of courts of law." It must be remembered that jury right is granted exclusively in civil cases which were recognized by the common law at the time of framing of Bill of Rights. The cases involving maritime and admiralty are thus not entertained by this article. In other words, some cases are simply not covered by this amendment. There may be cases which are not explicitly mentioned recognized by common law but if their civil nature can be determined, then they would be covered by this article. The Court explained that precedents of Seventh Amendment "require trial by jury in actions unheard of at common law, provided that the action involves rights and remedies of the sort traditionally enforced in an action at law, rather than in an action at equity or admiralty." The Seventh Amendment doesn't interfere with Congressional actions recognizing that "At least in cases in which 'public rights' are being litigated -- e.g., cases in which the Government sues in its sovereign capacity to enforce public rights created by statutes within the power of Congress to enact -- the Seventh Amendment does not prohibit Congress from assigning the fact-finding function and initial adjudication to an administrative forum with which the jury would be incompatible." Congress' powers are recognized where public rights are concerned. The court however clearly states that jury rights exist in all cases of private rights even if Congress or statutory rights are involved. In Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, the Court denied Congress the "power to strip parties contesting matters of private right of their constitutional right to a trial by jury." The Court explained that "public rights" are those that concern "the relationship between the Government and persons subject to its authority," whereas "private rights" are basically concerned with "the liability of one individual to another."