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

1 1 (December 22, 2022)

handle is hein.crs/govejyb0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Congressional_______ ~ Research Service The Right to a Jury Trial in Civil Cases Part 4: The Roles of Judges and Juries in Civil Cases December 22, 2022 This Legal Sidebar is the fourth in a five-part series that discusses a unique feature of the American legal system-the constitutional right to a jury trial in federal civil cases at law. During the Constitution's ratification, the Anti-Federalist, known by the pseudonym the Federal Farmer, argued that the Constitution should expressly provide a right to civil jury trials because the well born, who would comprise the judiciary, are generally disposed, and very naturally too, to favour those of their own description. Included as part of the Bill of Rights, the right to civil jury trials, according to a 2020 study, is seen by many judges as well as plaintiff and defense attorneys as providing a fairer way to resolve lawsuits than bench trials or arbitration. The use of jury trials to resolve civil cases, however, decreased from 5.5% in 1962 to less than 1% in 2013 with some attributing this to damage caps and mandatory binding arbitration. Members of Congress interested in civil litigation or federal court operations may find the constitutional right to jury trials in civil cases of interest. (For additional background on this topic and citations to relevant sources, see the Constitution of the United States ofAmerica, Analysis and Interpretation.) One of the Seventh Amendment's primary purposes was to preserve the historic line separating the province of the jury from that of the judge without preventing procedural innovations that respect this boundary. In defining this line, the Supreme Court has concluded that it is constitutional for a federal judge, in the course of a trial, to (1) express his opinion upon the facts, provided that all questions of fact are ultimately submitted to the jury; (2) call the jury's attention to parts of the evidence that he or she deems of special importance, being careful to distinguish between matters of law and matters of opinion; (3) inform the jury, when there is insufficient evidence to justify a verdict; (4) require a jury to answer specific interrogatories in addition to rendering a general verdict; (5) direct the jury, after the plaintiff's case is complete, to return a verdict for the defendant on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence; (6) set aside a verdict that is against the law or the evidence and order a new trial; and (7) refuse the defendant a new trial on the condition, accepted by plaintiff, that the plaintiff remit a portion of the damages awarded him. In International Terminal Operating Co. v. N. V Nederl. Amerik Stoom v. Maats., however, the Supreme Court held that an appellate court erred in reversing a jury's finding on the issue of the reasonableness of a stevedoring company's conduct in failing to avert an injury to one of its employees. The Court of Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10886 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

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

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most