Video Post- Seventh Amendment History

A brief history of the Seventh Amendment's history and evolution with American advancements.

Jury Trial Rights in State Courts

 My post this week is a review of an article concerning the right to a jury trial in a civil case at the state level.  In May of 2013 the Ohio Supreme Court denied Dr. Morris Kinast his right to a jury trial in a civil case.  In this case Dr. Kinast was being sued by the parents of a young boy who was under the professional care of Dr. Kinast.  Dr. Kinast had prescribed the boy and anti depressant medicine.  This particular anti-depressant had been known to increase suicidal thoughts or actions for years prior, and there was also a warning included on the product that cautioned people to monitor people taking that medicine for suicidal thoughts or actions.  It was also stated that the drug was not for use in pediatric patients.  The patient had been seeing Dr. Kinast since 2007 and, it is unclear when, along the way the doctor had prescribed the anti-depressants.  In 2009 the patient took his own life.  The family filed a suit for negligence against Kinast.  

The doctor's lawyers requested that the case be tried by a jury and filed the proper paperwork with the court.  The court then stated that all court costs for jury trials, in this cases $200, must be submitted within five days of the request.  Kinast's lawyers did not pay this fee within the five day period, and the court denied the request for a jury trial.  The case was appealed the Ohio Supreme Court, and the pleas were also rejected there.  At the time of the article's writing the case was in pretrial back in the county court.  

First, the Bill or Rights says the right to a jury trial in a civil case shall not be infringed upon. However, this is one amendment that the Supreme Court has not applied at the state level. It is up to state constitution's to grant this right to their citizens. The constitution for the state of Ohio also upholds the right to a jury trial. It seems to me that this should allow Dr. Kinast to have this case seen before a jury trial instead of being seen in front of a judge who is the only person making assessments on emotional issues. While the Supreme Court may not have jurisdiction to make the ruling in this case, it would seem to me that the Ohio Supreme Court should have upheld their state constitution. A simple clerical error should not cost a man the rights that he has been given and the rights that are protected by both his country and his state's constitution.

http://www.cantonrep.com/article/20130512/News/305129922/?tag=2  

Dairy Queen v Wood

Case Name: Dairy Queen v. Wood 369 U.S. 469 (1962)

Facts: Wood had been using the Dairy Queen trademark for his businesses. He had paid the company to use this trademark in certain areas of Pennsylvania, but Dairy Queen believed that he had breached the contract. They filed for an injunction keeping Wood from using the trademark and from collecting money from the trademark. They also sued for damages.

Procedural History: The District Court denied Wood's timely request for a trial by jury. The District Court felt that this case dealt with “purely equitable” damages. This then meant that the protections of the Seventh Amendment did not apply. The Court of Appeals denied a request to vacate the District Court's decision.

Issue: Did the lower courts err in not allowing Wood the right to have his case decided by a jury trial? Beacon Theaters, Inc. v. Westover found that where both equitable and legal issues are raised the case is to be decided by a jury.

Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that Wood had a constitutional right to a civil trial decided by jury in this case. The District Court's ruling to deny the jury trial was illegal, and the Court of Appeals should have granted the request to have the District Court's ruling vacated.

Reasoning: Scott v. Neely (1891) decided that where both equitable and legal issues were together, there was to be one trial to avoid inconvenience. They also believed that the denial of the seventh amendment right was only permissible when it was found that the “equitable” clause was used under “the most imperative circumstances.” Dairy Queen had tried to label the damages as equitable because they had referred to them as “accounting” instead of “debts” or “damages.” It was ruled that the wording does not change the claims.

Concurrence: Justice Harlan and Justice Douglas concurred with the ruling. The believed the case was to have been decided by a jury. They believed that the “accounting” desired in an “equitable” case form must be the type that can only be decided by a court of equity. The belief of Justice Harlan and Justice Douglas was that a jury could have easily decided the damages in this case. Therefore, the need for an equity court was not reasonable.

Comments: In my opinion, the Court's reversal of this decision was the right call to make. I do not understand how the District Court had denied the right to a jury in this instance because I cannot see how this case could be classified as strictly equitable. I find myself leaning more towards the concurring opinion in this case because I feel that it makes the decision pretty clear and easy to understand.

Tull v U.S. 481 U.S. 412, 107 S.Ct. 1831, 95 L. Ed. 2d 365 (1987)

 In Tull v. United States, a real estate developer, Tull, was accused of violating the Clean Water Act by disposing of fill materials from his development into some wetlands near the development property. When the Federal Government found out about these violations the attempted sued Tull for violations of the Clean Water Act. The government's claim was that Tull had dumped these fill materials in four separate locations. In the lawsuit the government asked for over $22 million in damages and for an injunction. At the time of filing most of the work had been completed and an injunction was deemed impractical.

Tull requested a jury trial and he was denied. After being denied the requested jury trial, the court ruled that Tull had to pay damages of $325,000, much less than the government requested. Tull appealed the decision on the basis of him being denied his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial for determining both his liability and the amount of the damages. The ruling was upheld in the Court of Appeals and then was taken by the Supreme Court.

Ultimately the Supreme Court ruled that Tull's Seventh Amendment right was violated by having his request for a jury trial denied. The majority opinion held that a jury was needed to determine liability, but it was up to the judges in the cases to determine the amount of the penalty. Two justices concurred believing that the jury should be responsible for determining liability and penalties.

Because the Seventh Amendment does not apply to equitable rights, it had to be determined by the Court how this applied in a case where there were also legal rights at stake. The Court ruled that the legal claim in this manner could not be infringed upon by the equitable rights. The right for the jury to determine the financial damages was denied by the judges based on the fact that civil penalties are fixed by Congress when passing legislation. The judges ruled that since the penalties are fixed there is no need for a jury to be asked to make a ruling also.

 I find myself agreeing with the first part of the ruling in this case. I think the Seventh Amendment is pretty clear in stating that people deserve their right to a jury trial in civil cases. For the Court to have upheld the lower court's rulings here would have been to do exactly the opposite of that. I do believe that the Court should have also allowed a jury to determine that amount of damages given as well. To me it would seem to allow people to have their civil trials completely decided by a jury of their peers.

Feltner v. Columbia Pictures

Case Name: Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. 523 U.S. 340 (1998)

Facts: Feltner owned Krypton International Corporation which had a license to rebroadcast several television shows owned by Columbia Pictures. Feltner fell behind in payments to Columbia. Columbia asked Feltner to cease broadcasting these shows and Feltner ignored their order. Columbia brought suit against Feltner for copyright infringement.

Procedural History: The District Court did not allow Feltner a jury trial, and ruled that he owed Columbia $8.8 million for infringement of their copyright. The Ninth Circuit Court affirmed this ruling. Feltner appealed on the belief that the Seventh Amendment guaranteed him a right to a jury trial.

Issue: Did the lower courts err in not allowing Feltner the right to have his case decided by a jury trial? It did not meet the requirements in the statute for a jury trial, but did it meet requirements for the Seventh Amendment's guaranteed right to a jury trial?

Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled statutory damages were covered under the guarantees of the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial. They reversed the decision of the lower courts and ordered the trial back to court for the jury to determine the actual amount of statutory damages.

Reasoning: The Court did not find a statutory right to a jury trial in order to recover statutory damages in copyright cases. They had to hold this ruling against the Constitution and the Seventh Amendment. They ruled there were analogous cases in England dating back to 1710 making this a Seventh Amendment case under the English Common Law of 1790 precedent. They also referenced American Cases of juries determining statutory damages for copyright infringement dating back to 1783.

Concurrence: Justice Scalia concurred with the ruling. He believed the case should have had a jury decide statutory damages, but did not believe the jury was constitutionally required because it did not need to be tested that far. He believed statutes up until that point allowed for the jury to decide these damages. The word “court” had been interpreted by the majority of the Court to mean “judge” whereas Scalia believed this term could include juries.

Comments: I find myself believing that the jury trial eventually granted to Feltner was constitutionally correct. Historical analogues provided more evidence for the need of a jury trial than precedence, and the interpretation of the word “court” to be taken to mean juries was too vague to provide a concrete ruling. After the trial was ruled back to lower courts Feltner probably wished he would have lost his appeal. The lower jury courts ruled he owed $31.68 million instead of the original $8.8 million. When Feltner tried to appeal to the Supreme Court it was denied and the $31.68 million award was upheld.