7. Amendment to the United States Constitution

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 7th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America , the Seventh Amendment, which, like the first through sixth and eighth to tenth amendments to the so-called Bill of Rights , guarantees that certain civil processes take place before juries and contains the prohibition for courts to to re-examine facts found by jury courts at a later point in time (the so-called re-examination clause). The United States Supreme Court extended the scope of the Seventh Amendment through the 14th Amendment in the case of the right to jury in civil matters through the Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Case. Bombolis, 241 US 211 (1916) not extended to the US states , as he did with many other parts of the Bill of Rights. However, he has the scope of the re-examination clause in the case of The Justices v. Murray, 76 US 274 (1869), extended to the US states.

text

“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. "

“In civil proceedings [common law] in which the amount in dispute exceeds twenty dollars, there is a right to a jury trial, and no fact found in such a court may be brought before a United States court under any other rules than those of the common law are subject to another examination. "

The 7th Amendment to the Constitution is listed as the “ninth article” (Article the ninth) in the bill passed by the US Congress .

Law and equity

In England there were two different types of courts: common law courts and equity courts (used when there is a conflict of interest between two parties, but neither of whom has broken the law). The former was based on strict legal regulations and awarded the victorious party legal compensation (financial compensation), while the latter was based on the principles of justice and the victorious party "equitable" (German: "just") compensation (non-financial compensation, including injunctions (German roughly: "court orders")) awarded. Juries have been used in common law courts , but not in equity courts. The differences in the English system were maintained in the Seventh Amendment.

In 1938 the legal systems of common law and equity were amalgamated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . The trial had to take place in juries if the case had been tried in a common law court, if the separation of legal systems had been maintained. However, in cases where there were both legal requirements and requirements relating to equity, it was difficult to act under this rule. In the past, such a process would have been split between the common law and equity courts. However, the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure precluded such a division of the case. The Supreme Court ruled that in these cases a jury must first decide on the legal questions and then a judge on the “equitable” questions. Otherwise, the judgment of the judge in the equitable questions would have the effect of a collateral estoppel, that is, he would pre-decide the treatment of the facts by the jury and thus limit the right to a process to be held before a jury on legal questions .

Verifying the facts

The so-called re-examination clause of the 7th amendment to the constitution prohibits the federal courts from ruling on decisions of jury courts according to rules other than those of common law . This prohibition, which originally only applied to federal courts, has been in force since the Supreme Court rulings “The Justices v. Murray "and" Chicago, B. & QRR v. City of Chicago ”also for the courts of the states or for cases that are submitted to the Supreme Court for review. However, the Supreme Court has signaled more frequently that, in the event of complaints that constitutional rights have been denied, it is free to examine and reconsider the evidence on which the lower courts' conclusions are based. The review clause states that facts may only be reviewed according to the principles of common law. According to the interpretation of the Supreme Court judge Joseph Story , common law states that in the event of a review, either the court where the case was examined must grant new proceedings or an appeals court for errors in law in the course of the negotiation must be called venire facias de novo ( Venire facias de novo is, after there were problems with the original jury judgment, a judicial order to recompose the jury body, which leads to a new procedure) has to issue.

Even if a process has a legal rather than an "equitable" issue, the judge plays a role in reaching the verdict. The Supreme Court found that judges are allowed to express an opinion on the facts in question (provided the jury actually decides on the facts in question), instruct the jury to pay particular attention to certain pieces of evidence, and require the jury to do certain things answered questions pertaining to the case in addition to their judgment. If the judge considers the evidence presented by the plaintiff to be insufficient, he may order the jury to rule in favor of the defendant.

Under common law, a judge could overturn a jury judgment that he believed was inconsistent with the evidence or the law. In such a case, common law ruled out that the judge himself could render a new judgment; a new process with a new jury would then be the only viable option. In 1913, the Supreme Court received in the Slocum v. New York Insurance Co. upholds this rule. However, later cases undermined this judgment. Today, a court is generally only allowed to pass a judgment that contradicts the jury's findings if the burden of proof is overwhelming.

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Revolutionary War and Beyond: The 7th Amendment. Retrieved August 9, 2011.
  2. ^ Ayres, Ian (1991): Pregnant with Embarrassments: An Incomplete Theory of the Seventh Amendment, p. 387. Retrieved August 9, 2011
  3. ↑ justia.com US Supreme Court Center: The Justices V. Murray, 76 US 274 (1869). Retrieved August 12, 2011.
  4. ^ Kilman, Johnny and George Costello (Eds.) (2000): The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation. Retrieved August 12, 2011.
  5. ^ Cornell University Law School: Venire facias de novo . Retrieved August 12, 2011.
  6. ↑ justia.com US Supreme Court Center: The Justices V. Murray, 76 US 274 (1869) . Retrieved August 12, 2011.

swell

Wikisource: English text of the United States Bill of Rights  - sources and full texts
Wikisource: German text of the 7th amendment to the constitution  - sources and full texts