It’s time to continue my Bill of Rights series with the seventh amendment. It is reproduced below.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Basically, if you sue somebody for more than $20, they have a right to insist on a trial by a jury. If a jury makes a ruling on the case, it cannot be challenged in any other court. Except “according to the rules of common law”.
Wait, why is that last part in there? That sounds pretty vague. What forms the “common law”? If a dispute between people has been decided by a jury already, why would it need to be re-examined?
It would be understandable, if it were a single judge, and there were reason to suspect a bias or conflict of interest, a retrial might be justified. But if it was a jury trial, what are the chances of a conspiracy? It doesn’t seem to justify such an open-ended qualifier, that could be easily abused by some government cronies.
Besides, if a judge made a biased ruling, or had a conflict of interest, wouldn’t the afflicted party be entitled to bring suit against the judge? Or even the members of the jury that conspired against them? They have caused that person harm or loss, and should be liable for damages if it was unjustified.
In general, the seventh amendment tries to protect the rights of the accused, and anyone involved in a personal dispute, but manages to fall short by including an unnecessary, open-ended qualifier.