About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

60 A.B.A. J. 570 (1974)
Federal Civil Jury Trials Should Be Abolished

handle is hein.journals/abaj60 and id is 571 raw text is: Federal Civil Jury Trials Should Be Abolished by Edward J. Devitt The use of juries in federal court civil cases should be nonobligatory in the interests of improving the administration of justice and providing more expeditious trials at less cost. While a constitutional amendment to change the Seventh Amendment might be a long process, the federal trial judges, supported by the bar, can take three steps to achieve the objective. S USE OF juries in civil cases in the federal courts an essential ingredient of fair trial? In my view, it is not, and the use of juries should be nonobligatory in the interests of improving the administration of justice and providing more speedy trials at less cost. Compulsory use of juries in civil cases is an un- necessary, time-consuming, and costly appendage to our system of justice and does not well serve either the litigants or the public. Judges in the federal system are at least as well qualified as juries of lay people-proba- bly better qualified-to decide issues of fact and law fairly. But my principal interest in urging the curtailment of jury trials is to clean up the backlog of cases, main- tain calendars current, and obtain the better and more efficient administration of justice. Each member of the bar, but particularly those of us who are trial judges, should seek new, inventive, and more efficient methods of judicial administration. We are well acquainted with the constantly increasing caseload of the federal courts. We are aware of the many efforts to cope with that caseload and to reduce the district court backlog (now one hundred and twenty-six thousand cases), principally in the large metropolitan centers. With the recent adoption by the district courts of plans under Rule 50(b) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the expeditious disposition of criminal cases, the backlog of civil cases has materially increased and likely will continue to do so. Justice suffers and public criticism persists if we manifest an inability to discharge our duties in the civil forum promptly. Many steps to improve the administration of justice in the federal courts have been taken. The Federal Judicial Center was created in 1967 to conduct training seminars for judges and their supporting personnel and to research improvements in operation of the courts. United States magistrates have been appointed in each of the districts and are rendering substantial assistance to the courts. Data processing and electronic retrieval are being used in the larger districts to great advantage. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts is furnishing additional assistance to the judges in many ways. Additional personnel for clerks' offices, probation officers, and other supporting agencies have been au- thorized, and qualifications have been raised and effi- ciency increased. In addition, the number of judges has increased. In the nineteen years since my appointment to the federal bench, the number of federal judges has almost doubled. Notwithstanding these improvements in the operation of the federal courts and the multiplication of judge- ships, caseloads continue to climb, and the backlog of civil and criminal cases is still with us. We must find new ways to discharge our responsibilities. Certainly we cannot continue just to add more judges and build bigger courthouses. I think it is fair to say that the backlog of cases in the federal courts, particularly in the metropolitan centers, is caused largely by the number of civil jury trials required by the Seventh Amendment. Very few jury trials are held in the federal courts other than those based on diversity of citizenship. Most of these are negligence cases, and most concern automobile ac- cidents. Is jury trial of these cases truly essential in order to secure a fair and equitable determination of the issue? A judge alone hears equity, admiralty, and maritime matters, naturalization and immigration issues, bank- ruptcy cases (with some exceptions), and habeas corpus petitions. There is no jury trial in Federal Tort Claims Act, Miller Act, Tucker Act, or Longshoreman and Harbor Workers Act cases. The National Labor Re- lations Act does not provide for jury trials. There are no juries in the Tax Court, the Customs Court, or the Court of Claims. Patent matters are tried to the court. Many administrative agencies, including the Interstate Commerce Commission, decide issues without the as- sistance of juries. In general, all statutory proceedings created since 1789 have no provision for and the Con- stitution does not require jury trial. If the federal courts were relieved of diversity juris- diction or if that jurisdiction were substantially curtailed, 570 American Bar Association Journal

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most