We all know about Small Claims Court, right? Minor civil suits (say, less than $1000… it varies by juristiction) are legally settled fast and lawyer-free, a la Judge Judy.
Usually you can have your case heard by a real judge – but that may take weeks or longer for an open date – or, if both parties agree, you can opt for a legally-binding arbitrator (read: moonlighting lawyer) who’s usually more informal and ready-to-go.
But here’s the “dirty little secret” of Small Claims Court: if the dispute is for over twenty bucks, you can insist on a trial by jury. It’s in the Constitution! (See Amendment VII.)
Obviously, given the hassle involved, the judicial powers-that-be do not encourage this option… but it is there.
I’ve never seen it happen. Have you? If so, what was the case and how was it treated?
What say ye, legal eagles, former SCC plainiffs, defendants and jurors?
I thought that if you asked for a jury, your case would be assigned to the appropriate court that can handle juries. Small claims courts is set up to be informal, especially regarding the ways that evidence can be presented. Since there’s only a judge in small claims court, s/he knows what’s good and what’s crap.
From what I’ve learned from my trips to jury duty that you can ask for a jury for just about anything, even traffic tickets.
That’s true, but there’s no easier way to piss off the judge…
Perhaps if you sue through small claims court, you waive your right to a jury trial…Just like when you pay off a ticket, you sign a form that says “I waive my right to a trial.” ??
My guess would be that you can always request a jury, and get it, but if so, and you lose the case, you are responsible for any court fees. Paying tens of thousands of dollars in court fees because you are sueing a plumber for $500.00 in poor service seems like a big enough deterrent for people to take their particular tort to small claims court.
It’s not exactly accurate to say you have a right to a jury trial in small claims court.
In Nebraska, for example, you specifically do not have such a right by statute. The statutes specifically say that a trial in small claims court is to be to the court, without a jury. If you are the plaintiff, choosing to file your case in Small Claims court consitutes a waiver of your right to a jury. If you sue a defendant in small claims court, THEY can demand a jury and the case is transferred to a different court that uses juries.
The U.S. Constitution may guarantee a right to jury trials… but if a party demands a jury, the case is then transferred to a county court or lower level trial court. “Small Claims” courts, however, generally handle matters without a jury.
It is a well known thing that you go and sue in small claims court and the defendant can have it kicked up to a higher court where you have to have a lawyer. Corporations do this routinely since their in-house lawyers do not cost them and if you have to pay a lawyer it may not be worth the effort.
The right to a civil jury guaranteed by the 7th Amendment does not apply to the states, only to the federal government. The 14th Amendment applies most of the Bill of Rights to the states under the doctrine of selective incorporation, but the 7th Amendment has never been applied to the states under this doctrine.
You would have to check the state constitution in your jurisdiction to see if the right to a jury in civil matters is protected by the state constitution, and if so, on what terms, such as a specific dollar limit.
jti beat me to it. The Seventh Amendment applies only to Federal courts, not to state courts. I would guess that there are precious few federal civil suits under common law that involve twenty dollars.
Corwin & Peltason’s Understanding the Constitution has this commentary
“It does not apply to equity proceedings.” I’m not a lawyer, but I believe “equity proceedings” means suits arising out of contract disputes.
I humbly thank all the above posters for their legal insights and clarifications. I obviously got some of my facts wrong/askew. Nonetheless…
Since nothing said thusfar actually prohibits someone from having a, say, $50 lawsuit settled by a jury, I’m still curious to know if anyone has heard of such a thing happening – state, federal or whatever.
While some of the amendments (my personal favorites, 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th) in the bill of rights have been interpreted as to be so basic as to apply to the states in addition to the federal government via the due process clause of the 14th. amendment, I’ve never heard that the 7th. amendment was one of them.
One of the reasons one would hesitate to ask for a jury trial here in Chicago for a small claims action is the fee for a jury demand here is a couple of hundred bucks, and yes, I do believe that the jury demand would also take the case away from the small claims division and put the case in the Municipal Department (claims for under $30,000).
Not quite. The distinction between law and equity dates back to England. At a certain point the common law became very rigid and resulted in manifest injustices. Losing litigants began to petition the King for relief against injustices worked by the King’s courts, and the King would delegate those complaints to the Chancellor, to investigate. If the Chancellor thought that the suitor had been hard done by, he could intervne and issue orders to correct the situation. Eventually, this process resulted in a parallel system of legal rules, based in equity (fairness) rather than the strict terms of the common law.
One of the main procedural distinctions between equity and common law was the jury - actions at law always went to a jury, suits in equity were decided solely by the judge. Hence, the 7th Amendment’s reference to “suits at common law.” Nowadays, with the fusion of law and equity, the distinction doesn’t have much significance, as you can have cases that raise equitable issues going to a jury.
Equitable claims can arise in a variety of situations, including property law, contract law, and trust cases.
I need to learn to type faster. Several other people basically said the same thing I did.
A remedy “at law” means your remedy is cash. An “equitable remedy” involves injunctive relief, i.e. a court order either requiring someone to do something or for them to stop doing something (e.g. an order to destroy the counterfeit CD’s of your copywritten music that have been already made, as opposed to the order for them not to produce any more counterfeits.) Penalties for violation of the court order can be monetary or imprisionment for contempt of court.
jti’s remarks on the English courts are true, of course. Some of those suits in the english courts dragged on so long that father lawyers (baristers?) would pass them on to their grandchildren.
I am aware of several cases in which the jury’s actual award was less than $50 - where juries have come back finding for the plaintiff, but awarding only $1 in damages. Obviously, that’s not exactly what you’re asking. I’m not aware of any cases that started out with requested relief of $50 and went to a jury.
Interestingly, in Virginia, with a criminal offense that does not include imprisonment as a penalty, the right to trial by jury does not attach, nor does the right to appointed counsel. It was not uncommon for prosecutors to inform the judge that the Commonwealth would not be seeking jail time, to specifically remove the possibility of a jury trial.
Of course, in Virginia, such a verdict (indeed, any criminal verdict) can be automatically appealed as of right, with no grounds needed. And the appeals process in such cases is not simply appellate review of the original trial, but a trial <i>de novo</i> in circuit court, where a jury may be requested.
doesn’t the trial de novo approach infringe double jeopardy? our Supreme Court has said you can’t do a trial de novo in penal matters, for that very reason. Or is it only the accused who can appeal? (Here, the Crown can appeal.) Just curious…