Right to a Civil Jury Trial: State Versus Federal Court
| Jurisdiction | Colorado,United States,Federal |
| Citation | Vol. 17 No. 1 Pg. 39 |
| Pages | 39 |
| Publication year | 1988 |
1988, January, Pg. 39. Right to a Civil Jury Trial: State Versus Federal Court
The civil litigant's right to a jury trial in Colorado differs substantially between state and federal court. In state court, the right to a jury is dependent on the nature of the complaint, without reference to claims in other pleadings, and exists for legal "actions" rather than all legal "issues" raised in the pleadings. Whether an action is found to be legal or equitable may depend on the court making the characterization.
As a result, there is more uncertainty regarding the right to trial by jury in a Colorado state court than in federal court. If there is a choice of forums (all other factors being equal), counsel should consider the more expanded right to a jury in federal court. If the dispute is to be resolved in state court, counsel should also be aware that careful pleading can influence the right to a jury determination of the case.
Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("F.R.C.P.") guarantees trial by jury "as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution or as given by a statute of the United States. . . ." Therefore, in federal court, the right to a jury is shaped in large part by the constitutional guarantee that "[i]n Suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. . . ."(fn1)
The scope of the right in federal court has been vigorously protected in a series of U.S. Supreme Court cases. In 1959, the Court decided Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover,(fn2) where the defendant counterclaimed for treble damages. The Court held that the defendant may not be deprived of a jury regarding its counterclaims simply because declaratory relief is sought by and available to the plaintiff. Beacon also held that a jury trial on the counterclaim could not be defeated because the case began as one in equity for an injunction.
The Court concluded that "only under the most imperative circumstances,. . . which in view of the flexible procedures of the Federal Rules we cannot now anticipate," can the right to jury trial of legal issues be lost on account of prior determination of equitable claims.(fn3) Thus, where legal and equitable issues overlap, the trial should be ordered so that the jury first decides all legal issues, and the judge then determines exclusively equitable issues.
In Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood,(fn4) the plaintiff alleged a material breach of contract, sued to enjoin defendants from using its trademark, and asked for a money judgment labelled an "accounting" for past due amounts. The lower court denied defendants' jury demand, finding that the claim for a money judgment was "incidental" to injunctive relief. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Beacon Theatres required that all legal issues, where "basic" or "incidental" to the lawsuit, be submitted to a jury. The claim for money damages was determined to be a jury issue, whether viewed as money due on a contract or damages for trademark infringement; styling it as an "accounting" was not dispositive because "the constitutional right to trial by jury cannot be made to depend upon the choice of words used in the pleadings."(fn5)
Beacon Theatres and Dairy Queen established that a federal court will look to each issue presented and not to whether the case would be generally characterized as legal or equitable. F.R.C.P. Rule 38(b) allows a party to demand a jury on "any issue triable of right by a jury. . . ." Whether an issue is legal or equitable
calls for some historical inquiry. If the issue in the context in which it arises would have been heard at common law in 1791, when the Seventh Amendment was adopted, or more accurately, in 1938 when law and equity were merged, it is now triable of right to a jury.(fn6)
It makes no difference whether the issue arises in the original complaint or another pleading such as a cross-claim or counterclaim. Finally, the right to a jury may not be lost because the court has decided the equitable issues first. In sum, the right to civil jury trial in federal court is broad in scope and reasonably certain in application.(fn7)
A civil litigant has no constitutional right to jury trial in a Colorado state
Upon demand, in actions for...
To continue reading
Request your trial