Hmmm: 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.
There are two parts to
the amendment. The first clause does not give the judge in a trial the right to
overturn a verdict of the jury in that trial. The unusual construction of this
case, where the jury will have to return three separate verdicts is the only
thing that gives the judge an opportunity to even think to do so. Usually, when
a verdict in favor of the defense comes in, it is time for the judge to dismiss
the jury (with thanks) and close the case. No room for motion practice, except
appeals to a higher court, and even then usually only by the defense.
The
second part "...than according to the rules of the common law." has to be
read the way the First Congress would have read it when passing the Amendment.
This is where John Peter Zenger and Billy Penn's hat come in. No lawyer of the
day would have constructed this Amendment as anything other than protecting the
right of the jury to decide both law and fact. Retrying a case is one thing*,
but changing the verdict in a case, and expecting the same jury to then try
additional issues? I wouldn't know where to look for precedents.
* For
example, as Google has already pointed out, they are entitled to a verdict on
all issues by a single jury. A mistrial on one count of the verdict throws the
entire verdict out, to (potentially) be retried by a new jury. How can that
happen if a judge gets to pick which parts of the verdict he accepts?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|