Source: https://www.mcmanislaw.com/blog/2018/the-jury-system-a-brief-comparison-between-federal-and-california-practices
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 00:58:39+00:00

Document:
This article, comparing the jury system in federal and state court, is one of a five-part series of articles highlighting particular differences in California versus federal civil procedure. Other articles in this series examine differences in punitive damages, citation to unpublished authority, evidentiary privileges, and class actions.
Under both federal and California law, parties in civil litigation enjoy a right to a jury in cases arising at common law, or when a jury is provided by statute. Neither system requires a jury in cases at equity, i.e., cases that historically were decided by a judge, or legal proceedings that have no common law analogy.
The federal right to a jury is stronger than its state corollary, due to a quirk in the development of federal Constitutional law. The Bill of Rights, which includes the right to a civil jury, was ratified in 1791. The Bill of Rights originally only restricted the powers of the federal government. As a result, no rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights bound the individual states. However, after the Civil War and the enactment of the 14th Amendment, and particularly in the 1960s, the Supreme Court has “incorporated” individual protections of the Bill of Rights, and applies them against the states. Over the last century, nearly all of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights have been held by the Supreme Court to apply to the states.
The right to a jury in civil actions is one of five rights not incorporated against the states. Thus, in state cases, the right is based entirely on state law, and California courts have enjoyed free reign to shape its contours.
In federal court, when a lawsuit concerns both equitable claims—claims tried by a judge—and common law claims—claims for which there is a right to a jury—the Court must not decide the equitable claims in a manner that limits the jury-triable claims. In other words, legal claims will be tried to the jury, and any remaining equitable claims will be decided by the judge. A judge may not decide equitable issues that would infringe on this right. This practice is consistent with a view that the right to a jury is an overriding interest.
In contrast, California case law has established a strong preference for trying equitable claims to a judge before any claims are tried to a jury. The policy interest is efficiency. On deciding the equitable cause of action, the judge may decide issues overlapping with jury-triable claims. In the process, potential issues for the jury may be narrowed or eliminated. This is precisely the result federal law seeks to avoid.
By failing to timely pay the fee described in subdivision (b) [of Code of Civil Procedure section 631], unless another party on the same side of the case has paid that fee.
By failing to deposit with the clerk or judge, at the beginning of the second and each succeeding day's session, the sum provided . . . .
The number of jurors to be empaneled, and the number of jurors needed for a verdict, are also different. A leading treatise observes that most federal courts use significantly smaller juries in civil actions than state courts typically empanel. Whereas California courts generally empanel twelve members, federal courts empanel as few as half this number.
The jury pool, sometimes referred to as the venire, is also different. In California state court, actions are tried to a jury of residents from within the county. In federal court, the jury is drawn from a region within the federal district. Thus, the jury pool, and eventually the jury, is typically comprised of individuals from multiple neighboring counties.
In federal civil cases, a verdict must be unanimous. In California, a verdict requires three-fourths, i.e., 75%, of the panel.
Demographics and voting thresholds should be considered whenever a plaintiff has a choice to file in federal or state court, or when a defendant has an option to remove or remand. Parties should also be aware of California’s “equity first” doctrine, and how it may affect their overall case strategy.
Sec. 16. Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all, but in a civil cause three-fourths of the jury may render a verdict. A jury may be waived in a criminal cause by the consent of both parties expressed in open court by the defendant and the defendant's counsel. In a civil cause a jury may be waived by the consent of the parties expressed as prescribed by statute.
 For a discussion of the Law-Equity distinction, see Cong. Research Serv., The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, S. Doc. No. 112-9, at 1706-08 (2d Sess. 2017).
 Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250 (1833) (“Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the state governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original constitution, and have expressed that intention.... [¶] These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them.”).
 Jerold H. Israel, Selective Incorporation: Revisited, 71 Geo. L.J. 253, 336-38 (1982).
 The Seventh Amendment, which provides for a civil jury, has not been incorporated. See Minneapolis & St. Louis R.R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211 (1916). Freedom from quartering soldiers has only been incorporated by the Second Circuit. See Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957, 961 (2d Cir. 1982). The prohibition on excessive fines has not been incorporated. See McDonald v. City of Chi., Ill., 561 U.S. 742, 765 fn. 13 (2010). The right to a criminal grand jury has not been incorporated. See Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884). The right to a jury of local residents has not been incorporated. See Caudill v. Scott, 857 F.2d 344 (6th Cir. 1988).
 See Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover (1959) 359 U.S. 500 (finding that the discretion to try equitable claims first is “very narrowly limited and must, wherever possible, be exercised to preserve jury trial.”).
 “It is well established that, in a case involving both legal and equitable issues, the trial court may proceed to try the equitable issues first, without a jury..., and that if the court’s determination of those issues is also dispositive of the legal issues, nothing further remains to be tried by a jury.” Raedeke v. Gibraltar Savings and Loan Assn. (1974) 10 Cal.3d 665, 671.
(e) The parties demanding a jury trial shall deposit with the clerk or judge, at the beginning of the second and each succeeding day's session, a sum equal to that day's fees and mileage of the jury, including the fees and mileage for the trial jury panel if the trial jury has not yet been selected and sworn. If more than one party has demanded a jury, the respective amount to be paid daily by each party demanding a jury shall be determined by stipulation of the parties or by order of the court.
(6) By failing to deposit with the clerk or judge, at the beginning of the second and each succeeding day's session, the sum provided in subdivision (e).
 Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2018) ¶ 3:658.
 Cal. Const., art. I, § 16.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 16