Introduction
The legal field can be confusing for many people and understandably so, it is full of unfamiliar terminology, rules, and traditions. Future lawyers attend law school to study the law, learning about how the legal system operates, developing skills necessary to be successful advocates for their clients, and developing the ability to “think like a lawyer“. The American legal system is rooted in common law, which thrives on tradition, utilizing concepts created hundreds of years ago which continue to serve as foundations for the modern system today. Through our two-part series we have chosen to briefly explore four legal “traditions” commonly referenced in the news, literature, media, undergraduate classroom and beyond.
Continue reading below to learn more about the first two in this series: jury trials and due process. We encourage you to start here and explore more about these important tenants of U.S. law!
Jury Trial
With Contributing Authors
Joel Diaz, Class of 2027 & Pranav Thamballapalle, Class of 2028
What is a Jury Trial?
Most people have a general understanding of what a jury trial is through representations in tv show, movies, and through actual trials of national interest broadcast through news outlets. Jury trials allow any citizen to take an active role in our system of justice. Black’s Law Dictionary defines a jury trial as “[a] formal judicial examination of evidence and determination of legal claims in an adversary proceeding.” Justia defines it as “A proceeding where a panel of citizens is given the responsibility of deciding the facts of a lawsuit or criminal prosecution“. More simply, a jury trial is when a group of citizens, typically six or twelve depending on the state and the type of case, are summoned and selected to observe evidence presented during a trial, deliberate, make findings of fact, and deliver a verdict (decision).
Attorneys representing the parties in a trial present facts and evidence to persuade the jury to make finding in their favor and deliver a verdict that is favorable to their party. The judge oversees the trial by providing instruction, ruling on in trial motions, determining admissibility of evidence, answering questions of law and providing instruction to the jury. Depending on the type of case (criminal v. civil) and the possible penalty/remedy involved, you may not have an absolute right to a jury trial. In some cases, you can choose between a jury trial or a bench trial, which is solely in front of a judge.
Brief History:
Jury trials have roots in Ancient Athens, where dikastai or citizen juries would adjudicate disputes by involving regular citizens in the justice system. This was similar to the case in Rome, where citizen assemblies were involved in trial systems. However, the modern jury trial structure was brought forth by medieval England. The process included local citizens being required to report crimes and serve a role in determining guilt. By the 13th century, juries became the standard part of English common law. The practice became foundational in the American legal system. After the United States achieved independence from Great Britain, jury trials were incorporated into Article III of the Constitution and in the Sixth and Seventh Amendments of the Bill of Rights, and thus became foundational part of modern American judicial systems.
“The American jury is a living institution that has played a crucial part in our
democracy for more than two hundred years. The American Bar Association
recognizes the legal community’s ongoing need to refine and improve jury practice
so that the right to jury trial is preserved and juror participation enhanced.” ABA, American Jury Project
Landmark Case:
One of the most significant cases related to the right to jury trial was the case Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) decided in the height of the Civil Rights movement. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the right to a jury trial when a state government attempted to deprive individuals of that right. Gary Duncan, convicted of simple battery in Louisiana, was denied a jury trial because state law at the time only granted jury trials in cases involving capital punishment. Duncan argued that the denial of a jury trial violated his rights under the U.S. Constitution, because the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from “depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,”. The Supreme Court agreed with Duncan, ruling that states must provide a jury trial for criminal cases (except for petty crimes), as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and extended to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
The right to a fair trial is central to the American system of jurisprudence, and it dates back through centuries of the Anglo-American tradition. It provides defendants with protection against aggressive prosecutors and judges as well as malicious prosecution. Justice Byron R. White – Duncan v. Louisiana
Conclusion:
Jury trial is an important pillar of democratic justice systems. It supports the notion that citizens should have a role in the judicial process, determining guilt or innocence. It also protects citizens from potential abuse of authority by acting as a check on government power. Jury trials are credited with some of the most important verdicts in history, which have safeguarded important legal values. While jury trials have important purposes, they are now less common. Jury trials are expensive, lengthy, and create the opportunity for uncertain outcomes. Many cases are now resolved through settlement, plea bargain, arbitration, etc – with some data indicating as high as 98% of federal and 95% of state convictions obtained through a plea bargain (LegalClarity.org).
The right to a jury trial remains a critical tradition in our legal system. A jury trial provides citizens with the opportunity to participate in civic engagement and their participation in legal processes helps to establish confidence in legal systems. The impact and purpose of jury trials can be extremely valuable, especially in high-stakes trials.
Sources & Additional Resources:
ABA Principles for Juries and Jury Trials
U.S. Courts: Bench Trials vs. Jury Trials | GovFacts
A Guide to Jury Service | Illinois State Bar Association
A Complete Overview of Jury Trials in the US Legal System
Jury Trial | Georgetown Center for the Constitution | Georgetown Law
Duncan v. Louisiana | 391 U.S. 145 (1968) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
Documentary: A Crime on the Bayou (2020) – IMDb
How Often Do Cases Actually Go to Trial? – LegalClarity
Due Process
With contributing author
Paige Thing, University of Illinois College of Law, Class of 2027
What is it?
What is due process? According to Black’s Law Dictionary, due process is “[t]he conduct of legal proceedings according to established rules and principles for the protection and enforcement of private rights, including notice and the right to a fair hearing before a tribunal with the power to decide the case.” In layperson’s terms, due process could also be defined as the entitlement to the protection and processes of the law.
Brief History:
Due process is a constitutional concept. It can be found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Both clauses prohibit the deprivation of a person’s “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” While being the same clause, its inclusion in the amendments has different purposes. The Fifth Amendment applies the clause to the federal government, and the Fourteenth Amendment applies it to the states through incorporation.
There are two types of due process: procedural and substantive. Procedural due process refers to the procedures that government officials follow before depriving someone of their life, liberty, or property. This includes allowing a hearing of some kind. Substantive due process refers to whether the government has an adequate reason for taking away someone’s life, liberty, or property. If a court decides that it does, then the government may proceed with its action. If the court decides otherwise, then the government must halt its actions because they are deemed unconstitutional.
Due process is a growth too sturdy to succumb to the infection of the least ingredient of error.
Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo, Roberts v. New York (1935)
Landmark Cases:
There are many landmark cases which have helped define and establish our understanding of due process rights in the U.S. legal system. Cases like Miranda v. Arizona (1966) which established the requirement that suspects are informed of their rights by law enforcement; and Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) which ensured the right to counsel for criminal defendants who cannot afford one – are just two examples of hallmark cases which helped establish legal rights which are commonly understood and expected today. The reality is there are many landmark cases through our legal history which have helped shape and define the right to due process in the U.S., below are two examples one from our history and one from modern times which illustrate the wide-ranging and continuing importance of due process today.
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857): One of the most famous, and condemned decisions regarding due process, the Dred Scott case is still studied in law schools today. Plaintiff Dred Scott first sued for his freedom and that of his family in Missouri after living for an extended time in a free northern territory and attempting to purchase his and his family’s freedom. Unsuccessful in state court, the case ultimately reached the Supreme Court. Decided in the 1850s when slavery was still legal in parts of the U.S., the Supreme Court held that enslaved individuals were not citizens and therefore were not entitled to due process of the law. The Dred Scott decision was highly controversial and vehemently opposed by abolitionist at the time. Today, the Dred Scott case is still widely considered to be the worst decision to date in the history of the Supreme Court. Following the Court’s decision, Dred Scott and his family were freed in May 1857, ultimately moving to St. Louis, MO. Although it has never been overturned by the Court, the enactment of the 13th (1865) and 14th (1868) Amendments functionally made the decision moot (meaning disputed or voiding it of practical significance).
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): The Obergefell case is a collection of similar suits brought in four separate states in the U.S. challenging those individual state’s prohibition on same sex marriages. At the time, same-sex marriage was legal in some states in the U.S., but not all. The Supreme Court held that same-sex couples have the right to marry, asserting that this right is fundamental and therefore protected by the Due Process Clause. As a result, states could no longer individually govern whether to recognize same-sex marriage or honor marriages performed in other states. Marriage becoming a fundamental right took that choice away from the states and made it uniform throughout the country.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, due process of law is a cornerstone of our Constitution and our legal system. It protects the inherent rights of American citizens and requires specific processes to fight against the deprivation of those rights. It applies to both federal and state governments and is one of the most important clauses in the Constitution, despite not being well-known by the ordinary American. It is an essential part of a Constitutional Law class.
Sources & Additional Resources:
Interpretation: The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause | Constitution Center
Due Process Generally | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
U.S. Constitution – Fifth Amendment | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Due Process Rights Legally Provided by the Constitution | Constitutional Law Center | Justia
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) | National Archives
Dred Scott v. Sandford | Constitution Center
U.S. Constitution – Thirteenth Amendment | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
U.S. Constitution – Fourteenth Amendment | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
American Experience | The Dred Scott Decision | Season 1 | PBS
Obergefell v. Hodges | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Obergefell v. Hodges | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
Obergefell v. Hodges | Constitution Center
