Opinion ID: 2088132
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Constitutional Right to a Civil Jury Trial and the Village Food Test

Text: ¶ 89 Trial by jury is a highly valued attribute of American government. It was regarded by the founders as an essential bulwark of civil liberty. Galloway v. United States, 319 U.S. 372, 397, 63 S.Ct. 1077, 87 L.Ed. 1458 (1943) (Black, J., dissenting in part, concurring in part). In Jacob v. New York City, 315 U.S. 752, 62 S.Ct. 854, 86 L.Ed. 1166 (1942), Justice Murphy cautioned: The right of jury trial in civil cases at common law is a basic and fundamental feature of our system of federal jurisprudence which is protected by the Seventh Amendment. A right so fundamental and sacred to the citizen, whether guaranteed by the Constitution or provided by statute, should be jealously guarded by the courts. Id. at 752-53, 62 S.Ct. 854. The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution protects civil jury trials in federal courts. [13] Although the Supreme Court has not applied the Seventh Amendment to the states, [14] most states have embodied a right of trial by jury in civil cases in their own constitutions. Only three have not. [15] In most of the 47 states that do have a constitutional right, there is emphatic language in the text to the effect that the right shall remain inviolate. [16] ¶ 90 The Wisconsin Constitution is one of the constitutions that includes such language. It provides in relevant part, The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, and shall extend to all cases at law without regard to the amount in controversy. Wis. Const. art. I, § 5. The meaning of the phrase shall remain inviolate has been subject to extensive debate. As one commentator has noted, For a right to remain inviolate, it must not diminish over time and must be protected from all assaults. Joseph D. Jamail, Jr., Essay, The Jury System, 43 Houston Lawyer 18, 19, Sept.-Oct.2005. This court has noted that the phrase, the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, refers to the state of the law as it existed at the formation of the constitution, and means that this right shall continue as it was at the time of formation and adoption of the constitution. Gaston v. Babcock, 6 Wis. 490 [], 494 [] (1857). ¶ 91 The phrase shall remain inviolate does not extend the right of trial by jury; rather, it preserves the right in civil cases as it existed at the time our constitution was adopted. It is important to note that in 1848, as now, not all civil matters were tried to a jury. Issues in actions at law were so tried, with some exceptions; issues in suits in equity were not, unless the chancellor in his discretion sent an issue to a jury for an advisory verdict. James Fleming, Jr., Right to a Jury Trial in Civil Actions, 72 Yale L.J. 655, 655 (1962-63). The phrase clearly indicates that non-statutory causes of action at law, where a jury trial was guaranteed before the passage of the state constitution, would continue to have a guaranteed right to a jury trial attached even after the passage of the constitution. Village Food, 254 Wis.2d 478, ¶ 10, 647 N.W.2d 177. ¶ 92 The question of a constitutional right to a civil jury trial becomes murkier when statutory causes of action are involved. [17] Statutory causes of action are by definition not common law causes of action; however, this court has declined to interpret the Wisconsin Constitution narrowly to exclude all statutory causes of action from the purview of the constitutional right to a civil jury trial. ¶ 93 In State v. Ameritech Corp., 185 Wis.2d 686, 517 N.W.2d 705 (Ct.App.1994), the court of appeals set forth a two part test to determine whether a party has a constitutional right to have a statutory claim tried to a jury: (1) the statute codifies an action known to the common law in 1848; and (2) the action was regarded as at law in 1848. Id. at 690, 517 N.W.2d 705. In Village Food, we expanded upon the first prong of the test, finding that it resulted in too narrow an interpretation of our Constitution. We restated the test as follows: [A] party has a constitutional right to have a statutory claim tried to a jury when: (1) the cause of action created by the statute existed, was known, or recognized at common law at the time of the adoption of the Wisconsin Constitution in 1848; and (2) the action was regarded as at law in 1848. Id., ¶ 16. ¶ 94 Three years later, the Village Food test was applied to a motorist's demand for a 12-person jury in a civil forfeiture trial for speeding. Dane County v. McGrew, 2005 WI 130, 285 Wis.2d 519, 699 N.W.2d 890. We concluded that the motorist had a constitutional right to a jury trial of six persons as existed for certain offenses in 1848, even though we could find no practical counterpart for speeding at common law. The majority determined that the court should not focus narrowly on individual traffic violations but rather on whether rules of the road existed at common law at the time the Wisconsin Constitution was adopted. Id., ¶¶ 56-58 (Bradley, J., concurring on behalf of four justices). Thus, McGrew gave an expansive interpretation to the Village Food test.