| United States of America |
This article is part of the series: |
| Original text of the Constitution |
|---|
| Preamble Articles of the Constitution |
| Amendments to the Constitution |
| Bill of Rights I · II · III · IV · V VI · VII · VIII · IX · X Subsequent Amendments |
|
Other countries · Law Portal |
The Seventh Amendment (Amendment VII) to the United States Constitution, which was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights, codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases.
Contents |
| “ | 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. | ” |
Prior to the Glorious Revolution of 1688, English judges were seen as "lions under the throne",[1] servile creatures of the King. As English judges held their sinecures at the pleasure of the King, they were sometimes biased in favor of the King and did not always make their rulings in an impartial manner. As such, the jury was an essential countervailing force against tyranny, insofar as the jury had every right to ignore a judge's instructions, thwarting even the will of the King. William Blackstone wrote that it was "the most transcendent privilege which any subject can enjoy, or wish for, that he cannot be affected either in his property, his liberty, or his person, but by the unanimous consent of twelve of his neighbours and equals."[2]
Whereas English judges won their independence from the Crown in the Act of Settlement 1701, American colonial judges still served at the pleasure of the King. King George III of Great Britain abolished trial by jury in the Colonies, one of the main grievances precipitating the American Revolution. As America's Founding Fathers shared a perfect horror at the concept of arbitrary courts of justice, such as those "of [King] Philip in the Netherlands, in which life and property were daily confiscated without a jury, and which occasioned as much misery and a more rapid depopulation of the province",[3] they incorporated the right to trial by jury into the Bill of Rights, thereby restoring what soon-to-be United States Supreme Court Justice James Iredell described as that "noble palladium of liberty",[4] and protecting it from the reach of future legislators.
"The right of trial by Jury is a fundamental law, made sacred by the Constitution, and cannot be legislated away."[5] According to Senator Richard Henry Lee,[6] the primary purpose of the trial by jury in America was to protect the public from corrupt or aristocratic judges:
The impartial administration of justice, which secures both our persons and our properties, is the great end of civil society. But if that be entirely intrusted to the magistracy,--a select body of men, and those generally selected, by the prince, of such as enjoy the highest offices of the state,--these decisions, in spite of their own natural integrity, will have frequently an involuntary bias towards those of their own rank and dignity. It is not to be expected from human nature, that the few should always be attentive to the good of the many." The learned judge further says, that "every tribunal, selected for the decision of facts, is a step towards establishing aristocracy—the most oppressive of all governments."[7]
The Framers intended to preserve the trial by jury as it existed in England,[8] as a check on potential abuse of power by the government.[9] John Adams explains:
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.[10]
Uncertainty in the law is a serious problem, insofar as the published precedent of courts in a common law system is supposed to constitute "a clear guide for the conduct of individuals, to enable them to plan their affairs with assurance against untoward surprise."[11] But whereas a runaway jury poses a clear and present danger to that reliance interest, a runaway judge can pose an even greater peril. As Thomas Jefferson explained: that
[w]e all know that permanent judges acquire an esprit de corps; that, being known, they are liable to be tempted by bribery; that they are misled by favor, by relationship, by a spirit of party, by a devotion to the executive or legislative; that it is better to leave a cause to the decision of cross and pile than to that of a judge biased to one side; and that the opinion of twelve honest jurymen gives still a better hope of right than cross and pile does. It is left therefore, to the juries, if they think the permanent judges are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this power but when they suspect partiality in the judges; and by the exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of English liberty.[12]
Whereas colonial judges routinely instructed jurors that they were the ultimate arbiters of both fact and law,[13] the modern judge asserts almost an plenary control over the evidence, law, and facts, instructing the jury as to what the law is,[14] and may overturn decisions in favor of the defense.[15]
The Re-Examination Clause of the Seventh Amendment states: "In suits at common law, ... no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." This clause forbids any court from reexamining or overturning any factual determinations made by a jury, unless the factual determinations are clearly erroneous. Determination of legal issues by a jury are subject to Appellate review.[16] Justice Samuel Nelson wrote the opinion of the Supreme Court in The Justices v. Murray, 76 U.S. 9 Wall. 274 (1869), which applied the Re-Examination Clause to the states. In his opinion Nelson quoted Justice Joseph Story to explain the modes to reexamine facts tried by juries according to Common Law: “Mr. Justice Story […] referring to this part of the amendment, observed […] that it was 'a prohibition to the courts of the United States to re-examine any facts tried by a jury in any other manner [than according to Common Law].' […] He further observed that 'the only modes known to the common law to re-examine such facts was the granting of a new trial by the court where the issue was tried, or the award of a venire facias de novo, by the appellate court, for some error of law that had intervened in the proceedings.'”
The Re-Examination Clause applies not only to federal courts, but also to "a case tried before a jury in a state court and brought to the Supreme Court on appeal."[17]
As common law provided, the judge could set aside (or nullify) a jury verdict when the judge decided that the verdict was contrary to the evidence or the law. Common law precluded the judge from himself entering a verdict; a new trial, with a new jury, was the only course permissible. In Slocum v. New York Insurance Co. (1913), the Supreme Court upheld this rule. Later cases have undermined Slocum, but generally only when the evidence is overwhelming, or if a specific law provides narrow guidelines by which there can be no reasonable question as to the required outcome, may the court enter "judgment as a matter of law" or otherwise set aside the jury's findings.
While the amount mentioned in the amendment ($20) has not been indexed or adjusted for inflation, Congress has never extended federal diversity jurisdiction to amounts that small, and the amendment is one of the few portions of the Bill of Rights never to have been incorporated by the Supreme Court of the United States. Under the current Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 U.S.C. §1332), the amount in dispute in diversity cases must exceed $75,000 USD in order for the case to be heard in federal court.[18]