Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/149/
Timestamp: 2019-03-25 01:26:09
Document Index: 447545117

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2072', '§ 2', '§ 2072', '§ 2', '§ 4705', '§ 2072']

Colgrove v. Battin :: 413 U.S. 149 (1973) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 413 › Colgrove v. Battin
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, BLACKMUN, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. DOUGLAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which POWELL, J., joined, post, p. 413 U. S. 165. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEWART, J., joined, post, p. 413 U. S. 166. POWELL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 413 U. S. 188.
Montana provides that a jury for the trial of civil cases shall consist of six persons. [Footnote 1] When respondent District Court Judge set this diversity case or trial before a jury of six in compliance with the Rule, petitioner sought mandamus from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to direct respondent to impanel a 12-member jury. Petitioner contended that the local Rule (1) violated the Seventh Amendment; [Footnote 2] 2(2) violated the statutory provision, 28 U.S.C. § 2072, that rules "shall preserve the right of trial by jury as at common law and as declared by the Seventh Amendment . . . ;" [Footnote 3]
In Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S. 78 (1970), the Court sustained the constitutionality of a Florida statute providing for six-member juries in certain criminal cases. The constitutional challenge rejected in that case relied on the guarantees of jury trial secured the accused by Art. III, § 2, cl. 3, of the Constitution and by the Sixth Amendment. [Footnote 5] We expressly reserved, however, the question
Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 28 U. S. 445 (1830). But the omission of a protective clause from the Constitution was not because an effort was not made to include one. On the contrary, a proposal was made to include a provision in the Constitution to guarantee the right of trial by jury in civil cases, but the proposal failed because the States varied widely as to the cases in which civil jury trial was provided, and the proponents of a civil jury guarantee found too difficult the task of fashioning words appropriate to cover the different state practices. [Footnote 8] The
since state practices varied so widely, any compromising language would necessarily have to be general. As a result, although the Seventh Amendment achieved the primary goal of jury trial adherents to incorporate an explicit constitutional protection of the right of trial by jury in civil cases, the right was limited in general words to "suits at common law." [Footnote 9] We can only conclude, therefore, that, by referring to the "common law," the Framers of the Seventh Amendment were concerned with preserving the right of trial by jury in civil cases where it existed at common law, rather than the various incidents
of trial by jury. [Footnote 10] In short, what was said in Williams with respect to the criminal jury is equally applicable here: constitutional history reveals no intention on the part of the Framers "to equate the constitutional and common law characteristics of the jury." 399 U.S. at 399 U. S. 99.
Consistently with the historical objective of the Seventh Amendment, our decisions have defined the jury right preserved in cases covered by the Amendment, as "the substance of the common law right of trial by jury, as distinguished from mere matters of form or procedure. . . ." Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman, 295 U. S. 654, 295 U. S. 657 (1935). [Footnote 11] The Amendment, therefore, does not "bind the federal courts to the exact procedural incidents or details of jury trial according to the common law in 1791," Galloway v. United States, 319
U.S. 372, 319 U. S. 390 (1943); see also Ex parte Peterson, 253 U. S. 300, 253 U. S. 309 (1920); Walker v. New Mexico & S. P. R. Co., 165 U. S. 593, 165 U. S. 596 (1897), and
It is true, of course, that several earlier decisions of this Court have made the statement that "trial by jury" means "a trial by a jury of twelve. . . ." Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, 174 U. S. 1, 174 U. S. 13 (1899); see also American Publishing Co. v. Fisher, 166 U. S. 464 (1897); Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581, 176 U. S. 586 (1900). But in each case, the reference to "a jury of twelve" was clearly dictum, and not a decision upon a question presented or litigated. Thus, in Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, supra, the case most often cited, the question presented was whether a civil action brought before a justice of the peace of the District of Columbia was triable by jury,
399 U.S. at 399 U. S. 92-93. We cannot, therefore, accord the unsupported dicta of these earlier decisions the authority of decided precedents. [Footnote 13] There remains, however, the question whether a jury of six satisfies the Seventh Amendment guarantee of "trial by jury." We had no difficulty reaching the conclusion in Williams that a jury of six would guarantee an accused the trial by jury secured by Art. III and the Sixth Amendment. Significantly, our determination that there was "no discernible difference between the results reached by the two different-sized juries," 399 U.S. at 399 U. S. 101, drew largely upon the results of studies of the operations of juries of six in civil cases. [Footnote 14] Since then,
much has been written about the six-member jury, but nothing that persuades us to depart from the conclusion reached in Williams. [Footnote 15] Thus, while we express no view
as to whether any number less than six would suffice, [Footnote 16] we conclude that a jury of six satisfies the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of trial by jury in. civil cases. [Footnote 17]
The statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2072, authorizes this Court to promulgate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but provides that "[s]uch rules . . . shall preserve the right of trial by jury as at common law and as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution." [Footnote 18] Petitioner argues that, in securing trial by jury "as at common law" and also "as declared by the Seventh Amendment," Congress meant to provide a jury having the characteristics of the common law jury even if the Seventh Amendment did not require a jury with those characteristics. As the Court of Appeals observed, "[t]his would indeed be a sweeping limitation." 46 F.2d at 1380. Petitioner would impute to Congress an intention to saddle archaic and presently unworkable common law procedures upon the federal courts, [Footnote 19] and thereby to nullify innovative changes approved by this Court over the years that have now become commonplace and, for
H.R.Rep. No. 1829, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1934). As emphasized by the Court of Appeals, the language of § 2 preserving the right of trial by jury was included "to assure that with such union [of law and equity] the right of trial by jury would be neither expanded nor contracted." 456 F.2d at 1381, citing 5 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¦38.06, p. 44 (2d ed.1971). See also Cooley v. Strickland Transportation Co., 459 F.2d 779, 785 (CA5 1972). In other words, Congress used the language in question for the sole purpose of creating a statutory right coextensive with that under the Seventh
Petitioner's argument that local Rule 13(d)(1) [Footnote 22] is inconsistent with Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 48 rests on the proposition that Rule 48 implies a direction to impanel a jury of 12 in the absence of a stipulation of the parties for a lesser number. Rule 48 was drafted at the time the statement in Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, supra, that trial by jury means a "jury of twelve," was generally accepted. Plainly the assumption of the draftsmen that such was the case cannot be transmuted into an implied direction to impanel juries of 12 without regard to whether a jury of 12 was required by the Seventh Amendment. Our conclusion that the Hof statement lacks precedential weight leaves Rule 48 without the support even of the draftsmen's assumption, and thus there is nothing in the Rule with which the local Rule is inconsistent. [Footnote 23]
The reference to "common law" contained in the second clause of the Seventh Amendment is irrelevant to our present inquiry because it deals exclusively with the prohibition contained in that clause against the indirect impairment of the right of trial by jury through judicial reexamination of factfindings of a jury other than as permitted in 1791. Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman, 295 U. S. 654, 295 U. S. 657 (1935); Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 28 U. S. 447-448 (1830); 5 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¦38.08 [5], pp. 86-90 (2d ed.1971).
Now, however, my Brethren mount a frontal assault on the very nature of the civil jury as that concept has been understood for some seven hundred years. No one need be fooled by reference to the six-man trier of fact utilized in the District Court for the District of Montana as a "jury." This six-man mutation is no more a "jury" than the panel of three judges condemned in Baldwin v. New York, 399 U. S. 66 (1970), or the 12 laymen instructed by a justice of the peace outlawed in Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, supra. We deal here not with some minor tinkering with the role of the civil jury, but with its wholesale abolition and replacement with a different institution which functions differently, produces different
judicial process is deemed wise or necessary, it should be accomplished by constitutional amendment. See, e.g., Tamm, The Five-Man Civil Jury: Proposed Constitutional Amendment, 51 Geo.L.J. 120 (1962). It appears, however, that the common law jury is destined to expire not with a bang, but a whimper. The proponents of the six-man jury have not secured the approval of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures for their proposal. Indeed, they have not even secured the passage of simple legislation to accomplish their goal. Instead, they have relied upon the interstitial rulemaking power of the majority of the district court judges sitting in a particular district to rewrite the ancient definition of a civil jury. [Footnote 2/3] They have done so, moreover, in the teeth of an Act of Congress and a Federal Rule promulgated by this Court
First, Apodaca, Johnson, and Williams all involved state trials and, therefore, the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Sixth. This case is, of course, distinguishable in that it deals with a federal trial and, therefore, with Bill of Rights guarantees which are directly applicable, rather than applicable only through the incorporation process. [Footnote 2/4] Thus, neither Apodaca, Johnson, nor Williams squarely presented the Court with the problem of defining the meaning of jury trial in a federal context. [Footnote 2/5] Indeed, as
Moreover, even if it is assumed that the holdings in Apodaca, Williams, and Johnson are readily transferable to a federal context, it still does not follow that the definitions of trial by jury for purposes of the Sixth and Seventh Amendments are necessarily coextensive. The two Amendments use different language, and they guarantee different rights. Indeed, as the Williams court itself recognized, the approval of six-man juries in criminal
295 U.S. at 295 U. S. 657. And in American Publishing Co. v. Fisher, the Court held that what was guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment was "the peculiar and essential features of trial by jury at the common law." 166 U.S. at 166 U. S. 468. It should therefore be
In contrast, the history of the Seventh Amendment contains no express rejection of language which would fix the common law attributes of the civil jury. Indeed, as the Court itself recognizes, the extant history of the Amendment is exceedingly sketchy. See generally Henderson, The Background of the Seventh Amendment, 80 Harv.L.Rev. 289 (1966). Undeterred by the absence of source material, however, my Brethren concoct an elaborate theory designed to demonstrate that the Framers did not intend to fix the nature of the civil jury as it existed at common law. As I read the
"[I]t is common sense, and not merely the blessing of the Framers, that explains this Court's frequent reminders that 'The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.' Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S.
465, 124 U. S. 478 (1888). This proposition was again put forward by Mr. Justice Gray speaking for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898), where the Court was called upon to define the term 'citizen' as used in the Constitution."
399 U.S. at 399 U. S. 98-99, n. 45. [Footnote 2/7]
It is senseless, then, to say that a panel of six constitutes a "jury" without first defining what one means by a jury, and that initial definition must, in the nature of things, be arbitrary. One could, of course, define the term "jury" as being a body of six or more laymen. But the line between five and six would then be just as arbitrary as the line between 11 and 12. There is no way by reference to abstract principle or "function" that one can determine that six is "enough," five is "too small," and 20 "too large." [Footnote 2/8] These evaluations can only be made by reference to a hypothetical ideal jury of some arbitrarily chosen size. All one can say is that a jury of six functions less like a jury of 12 than would
The arbitrary nature of the line which must be drawn in determining permissible jury size highlights another anomaly in the Court's opinion. Normally, in our system, we leave the inevitable process of arbitrary line drawing to the Legislative Branch, which is far better equipped to make ad hoc compromises. In the past, we
Uninhibited by the seeming restraints of its own logic, however, my Brethren proceed to read this phrase to preserve juries in cases tried at common law in the face of the merger of law and equity. But if we are again to take the Court at its own word, this is precisely the result achieved by the Seventh Amendment of its own force. There is, of course, a well-recognized canon of construction which requires courts to read statutory provisions so that, when possible, no part of the statute is superfluous. See, e.g., 2 J. Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 4705 (3d ed.1943), and cases cited therein. Yet the Court's reading of this statute creates not just a redundancy, but a double redundancy. If the framers of § 2072 had intended merely to preserve jury trials in cases at common law, then no statute at all would have been necessary, since, as the Court recognizes, the Seventh Amendment by itself is sufficient to accomplish this purpose. Yet Congress not only passed a statute -- it adopted a provision securing trial by jury both "as declared by the Seventh Amendment" and "as at common law." If one accepts for the moment the Court's premise that the Seventh Amendment preserves only the right to juries in common law cases,
363 U.S. 641, 363 U. S. 650 (1960). We therefore declined to construe the local rulemaking power as extending to such innovations. Ibid. The Court seeks to escape the force of this precedent with the assertion that "the requirement of a six-member jury is not a basic procedural innovation.'" I find this statement startling, to say the least. Whatever one's view of the constitutionality of six-man juries, surely it cannot be doubted that this shift in a practice of seven hundred years' standing, likely to affect the outcome of hundreds of cases, see n. 1, supra, and infra at 413 U. S. 177, constitutes a "basic procedural innovation."
See ante at 413 U. S. 160 n. 16. We can bypass for the moment the intriguing question of where the majority finds this requirement in the words of the Seventh Amendment. For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that, upon examination, this "test" turns out to be no test at all. It may be that the ideal jury would provide "enough" group deliberation and community representation. But the question in this case is how much is "enough." Obviously, the larger the jury the more group representation it will provide. See n. 1, supra. Merely observing that a certain level of group representation is constitutionally required fails to tell us what that level is. And, more significantly, it fails to tell us how to go about deciding what that level is.