Court Opinion

ID: 9425389
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:14:34.952376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:55.221826
License: Public Domain

*165Me. Justice Douglas,
with whom Mr. Justice Powell concurs, dissenting.
Rule 13(d)(1) of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Montana provides:
"A jury for the trial of civil cases shall consist of six persons . . . .”
Federal Rule Civ. Proc. 48 — which came into being as a result of a recommendation of this Court to Congress which Congress did not reject* — rests on a federal statute.
The two Rules do not mesh; they collide. Rule 48 says that the only way to obtain a trial with less than 12 jurors or a verdict short of a unanimous one is by stipulation.
As Me. Justice Marshall makes clear in his dissent, while the parties under Rule 48 could stipulate for trial by an 11-man jury, under the Montana District Court rule only six jurors could be required. Since all apparently agree that the framers of Rule 48 presumed there would be a jury of 12 in the absence of stipulation, the only authority which could reduce 12 to six would be the authority that created Rule 48. Neither we nor the District Court, nor the Judicial Conference, nor a circuit court council has the authority to make that change.
Whether the change, if made, would be constitutional is a question I therefore do not reach.

At the time the Rules of Civil Procedure became effective they had to be submitted to Congress by the Court and Congress had 90 days to reject them. 28 U. S. C. § 2072. At that time § 2072 provided that these Rules “shall preserve the right of trial by jury as at common law and as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution.” It seems clear beyond peradventure that the draftsmen thought a jury of 12 was required, save as the parties by stipulation waived that right by stipulating to a lesser number.