On Thu, July 16, 1998 at 10:05:13 (-0700) James Devine writes: >>... >>the FIJ movement argues that jurors are enabled by the US constitution to >>judge a case not only on the basis of the facts but also the morality of >>the law being enforced. ... Juries have evolved a lot over the millenia. Originally the common law jury was composed of witnesses who knew the facts of the case and worked to sort them out and arrive at a judgment. Now we seek jurors who know little or nothing of the facts of the case. At one point juries would have been composed of the male wealthier classes - now that would be a constitutional violation. Juries were only available in common law cases (cases involving usually monetary remedies and criminal cases) and not available at all in cases tried in the equity or chancery courts -- courts where the relief involved injunctions, mandatory relief, and the like. Now equity and common law causes of action are combined in most US states, but this tradition still plays an important role in affecting when you are entitled to a jury trial, what role the judge plays, and what sorts of relief you are entitled to. The situation with the US jury that exists now is just a point on the evolution of the jury. The common law jury was imported into the US constitution by the VII amendment, which provides for a right to jury trial in any case in which more than $20 is at stake and which could have been tried at common law at the time the constitution was ratified. This literally means figuring out whether a shareholder derivative suit is sufficiently like a common law cause of action or is more like an equitable cause of action. Jury nullification has played a role throughout the history of the jury, although clearly the judges don't like it. When I was called for jury duty a few weeks ago we were asked whether we knew what jury nullification was and whether we believed in it. Anyone who said yes (one person) was in for extra questioning. Ellen Dannin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
