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