GUEST LECTURE-SJ MOTION
Follow up

Fed Ct SJ Motion – Stephenson v. USA


Motion for Reconsideration
Discovery issue

Request for admission


Response


Admit didn’t inform pl. that 2/5/87 barium enema
revealed polyp
US can’t reasonably determine
Given response, can def create gimf

Declarations from MD’s about usual practice
WHERE WE ARE &
WHAT WE’RE DOING



Pleading
Pre-trial
Trial & Post-trial


Identifying the trier – judge or jury
Appeal
IDENTIFYING THE TRIER

Judges


Judges v. Juries


Bias & “Recusal”
Right to jury trial
Juries/Jurors



6 v. 12 persons
Unanimity
Peremptory challenges
RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL
Who cares?

Judges v. Juries


Right to jury trial
Who cares?

Jury nullification
RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL
Who cares?

Chauffers, etc. v. Terry, p. 670


Why did union bother to appeal?
“Repeat players”

Marc Galanter, Why the "Haves" Come Out
Ahead:Speculation on the Limits of Legal Change, 9
Law & Soc'y Rev. 95 (1974)
RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL
The Constitutional Text

Amendment VII

“In Suits at common law . . . the right of
trial by jury shall be preserved”
RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL
The Doctrinal Interpretation

“Black Letter” Law

Jury trial if available in 1791

-Right


Nature of issue to be tried
+Remedy+
Nature of issue


analogous cause of action
existed in 18th century

Prior to merger of law & equity
RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL
Constitutional Interpretation

Cf.

Statutory interpretation


Protocols
Constitutional interpretation

Text, history, traditions
RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL
Constitutional Interpretation


The role of history
“Originalism” v. “non-originalism”
RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL
Constitutional Interpretation

The Problems with “Originalism”

Social & technological change



Who could predict
Values
Linguistics

Indeterminacy & the hermeneutic
RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL
Constitutional Interpretation

Support for “Originalism”

Texts & history


Assumption they provide an answer
Judicial discretion

Urge to fetter it
RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL
The Historical Test


Amoco Oil Co. v. Torcomian, p. 685
Plaintiffs





Ejectment = law/jury
Injunction x 2 = equity/no jury
Lost profits = law/no jury
Mesne profits, etc. = equity/no jury
Defendants


Injunction = equity/no jury
Lost profits = law/jury

Unless “clean-up doctrine” damages = equity
RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL
The Historical Test


P. 691, note 6
a. Pl seeks injunction
+ Def denies allegations
No jury: equitable claim
RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL
The Historical Test


P. 691, note 6
b. Pl seeks injunction
+ Def seeks constructive trust
No jury
equitable claim
+ equitable counterclaim
RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL
The Historical Test


P. 691, note 6
c. Pl seeks injunction
+ Def counterclaims for damages
Jury
Cf. Torcomian
RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL
Historical Test

Complications


New claims
New procedures


Merger of law & equity
Broad joinder of claims


Beacon Theaters
Potential for “recharacterizing” claims

Dairy Queen
RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL
Takeaways

Big picture


Why we care about jury trials
Constitutional interpretation

Historical tests & “originalism”
RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL
Takeaways

“Black Letter” Law

Jury trial if available in 1791

Right



Nature of issue to be tried
Remedy
Nature of issue


analogous cause of action
existed in 18th century

Prior to merger of law & equity