Also known as: jury trial right · right to jury trial · Sixth Amendment right · Seventh Amendment right
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A constitutional protection that reserves factual determinations in serious criminal prosecutions to decision by a jury of laypersons rather than a judge alone. The right attaches in federal court under the Sixth Amendment and extends to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
A constitutional protection that reserves factual determinations in serious criminal prosecutions to decision by a jury of laypersons rather than a judge alone. The right attaches in federal court under the Sixth Amendment and extends to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A constitutional protection that reserves factual determinations in civil actions at common law to decision by a jury of laypersons rather than a judge alone. The right is preserved only when a party serves and files a timely written demand no later than fourteen days after the last pleading directed to the issue.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A constitutional protection that reserves factual determinations in civil actions at common law to decision by a jury of laypersons rather than a judge alone. The right is preserved only when a party serves and files a timely written demand no later than fourteen days after the last pleading directed to the issue.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Jordan Jenkins was indicted on robbery charges after police showed the victim a photo array. At arraignment Jordan served a written jury demand. The government later argued that the photo procedure required counsel and that the jury demand was therefore premature. The court rejected the argument and set the case for jury trial because the Sixth Amendment right attached regardless of the identification procedure.
June Jiang was convicted by a judge after her state-court waiver of jury trial. On collateral review she argued that a new Supreme Court decision recognizing a broader jury right should apply to her case. The court refused to apply the decision retroactively because the new rule did not fall within the narrow exceptions permitting retroactive application on habeas.
Javier Jimenez was convicted after a jury trial. Post-verdict affidavits showed that two jurors had been intoxicated during deliberations. The trial court refused to consider the affidavits. On appeal the court affirmed because the general bar on juror testimony about deliberations prevented inquiry into the jurors' condition.
Jada Jones sued Jacobs Shipping for securities fraud and obtained a jury verdict finding the company liable. In a later action by another plaintiff the court applied the earlier findings against the company. The company objected that the second plaintiff had not been a party to the first trial. The court upheld the preclusive effect because the first jury had already resolved the common factual issues.
Jeffrey Jha brought a shareholder derivative action on behalf of Juarez Holdings alleging breach of fiduciary duty. The corporation moved to strike the jury demand on the ground that derivative claims are equitable. The court denied the motion and allowed the jury to decide the underlying legal claims because those claims would have been triable to a jury if the corporation itself had sued.
Julia Jensen sued Jensen Farms for employment discrimination and the company used peremptory challenges to strike several prospective jurors. Jensen objected that the strikes violated equal protection. The court sustained the objection because the private litigant exercised state authority when selecting the jury and therefore could not discriminate on the basis of race.
A party must serve and file a written jury demand no later than fourteen days after service of the last pleading directed to the issue. Failure to meet that deadline waives the right even if the claims are otherwise triable to a jury.
Supporting sources
No. Each party possesses an independent right to demand a jury on issues directed to that party. Intervenors who serve a timely demand with their own pleadings preserve the right even if the original defendant waived.
Supporting sources
The court weighs the state's interest in its rule against the federal interest in preserving jury fact-finding under the Seventh Amendment. When the state rule is closely tied to substantive policy the state interest may prevail.
Supporting sources
…consulting with his client. Independent of any other constitutional proscription, this action constitutes a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel and excludes any statement obtained in its wake. See People v. Donovan , 13 N. Y. 2d 148, 193 N. E. 2d 628, 243 N. Y. S. 2d 841 (1963) (Fuld, J.). [^maj-36]:…