7th-amendment

Oriana – The 7th Amendment

Video

Written Component

When being ruled by Britain, the colonists had no say in the British Parliament, meaning that they had no control in how they were governed, or what taxes were levied on them. So when the colonies introduced the idea of independence from Britain, colonial juries were a way for the colonies to start governing themselves. And in 1776, when the colonies finally gained their independence, the right to civil jury was included in many state laws.

However, when the Constitutional Convention met in 1787, there were mixed feelings about civil juries. The Federalists felt that including a civil jury in the constitution would lead to the nullification of laws, while Anti-Federalists believed that the lack of this law would prevent citizens from being protected from governmental abuses. Ultimately the 7th amendment was drafted into the Bill of Rights. The 7th Amendment is commonly interpreted as: The right to a jury trial in civil cases, when the case dispute exceeds 20 dollars. No judge can overturn the jury’s verdict. In the 7th Amendment, the term “common law” is used twice.

This term confused many as it was unclear what common law the writers of the Constitution were referring to. America was a young nation, and it did not yet have a common law to base this Amendment on. In the Supreme Court case United States v. Wonson, it was determined that the common law that the amendment referred to was actually the common law of England. This statement was refined in Dimick v. Schiedt (1935), which declared that the 7th amendment was to be interpreted in terms of English common law as it was in 1791. The meaning of this term was clearly defined. However, the Supreme Court ruled in the Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman (1935) case, the “substance of the common law right of trial by jury” is different in its actual application to every civil case. This means that the right to trial by jury is guaranteed, but certain civil cases can be handled with modifications to the jury, including a decreased size, or the lack of.

I agree with this ruling because there are, especially in the 21st century, many aspects that can go into each case, making them unique from each other. And in some of these cases, juries aren’t required, or would benefit without a jury. Every aspect of this amendment has been clearly defined, except the twenty dollar amount required for a civil case to be tried by a jury. This is because the impact of this dollar amount has changed over the centuries. While twenty dollars may have been a handsome amount of money in 1791, the value has decreased, not accurately representing the amount required for modern day civil cases. And may very well be the case in the future, where the price again becomes irrelevant. It’s best to remove this clause entirely.

The VI & VII Amendments

Video

Written Component

The 6th and 7th Amendments are criminal amendments alongside the 5th and 14th Amendments. There were two main reasons why the Sixth Amendment and Seventh Amendment were created. Firstly, these amendments responded to and strengthened previous British criminal prosecutions where only magistrates and judges would collect evidence and ask questions. Second, it was influenced by the enforcement of the sugar acts, where the British  sent colonials to Vice-Admiralty courts outside the colonies, without juries, and no representation. The Sixth responds to these concerns, creating a court framework so that criminal prosecutions would consist of a jury of peers to eliminate bias and guarantees the accused rights to a speedy, impartial, public trial. Now, the Sixth Amendment is more commonly understood to guarantee the accused rights to an attorney, no matter the cost.

However, this only existed after the Gideon vs. Wainwright court case, where Gideon, denied the right to an attorney after being convicted of a break-in, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights were violated. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, and now the right to an attorney is explicitly and widely known to be incorporated within the Sixth Amendment. There are several other occurrences where the Sixth protected the accused’s rights after their right to a speedy trial was violated. For example, Zedner vs. United States is a criminal case where the district court judge convinced JACOB Zedner to waive his right to a speedy trial.

Zedner, four years later, appealed to the Supreme Court, stating that waiving his rights violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment. In the end, all judges ruled in his favor. The Sixth, as demonstrated, is an essential part of the Amendments that protect the rights of the accused and creates a fairer and more impartial criminal prosecution system.

The Seventh Amendment states that both parties have the right to a jury on civil cases that exceed twenty dollars. The second clause of the Seventh states a similar case to the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy. Civil cases will not be re-examined unless according to the standard law rules. Recently, however, the decision to use civil juries has been declining partly because of many negative downsides, including the fact that people are less willing to pay lawyer fees for a jury, jury trials for civil cases are generally more time-consuming for all parties, and State governments can modify the threshold(money needed)until the use of juries in civil cases are allowed.

Since the Seventh Amendment was created to serve as a means of representation, the original purpose of the Seventh Amendment to represent the American people may seem outdated. However, it still must be understood that both the 6th and 7th Amendments are significant to protect and ensure the rights of the accused. Otherwise, accused people would not have rights and face extreme bias and conviction rates within court systems.