decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Kicking over the hornet's nest. | 134 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Kicking over the hornet's nest.
Authored by: symbolset on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 01:28 AM EDT
I too had this wrong. But on appeal in de novo review to find against a
respondent the jury has cleared of wrongdoing in a civil case is not the burden
of proof raised somewhat?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Kicking over the hornet's nest.
Authored by: eachus on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 08:20 AM EDT
Hmmm: 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.

There are two parts to the amendment. The first clause does not give the judge in a trial the right to overturn a verdict of the jury in that trial. The unusual construction of this case, where the jury will have to return three separate verdicts is the only thing that gives the judge an opportunity to even think to do so. Usually, when a verdict in favor of the defense comes in, it is time for the judge to dismiss the jury (with thanks) and close the case. No room for motion practice, except appeals to a higher court, and even then usually only by the defense.

The second part "...than according to the rules of the common law." has to be read the way the First Congress would have read it when passing the Amendment. This is where John Peter Zenger and Billy Penn's hat come in. No lawyer of the day would have constructed this Amendment as anything other than protecting the right of the jury to decide both law and fact. Retrying a case is one thing*, but changing the verdict in a case, and expecting the same jury to then try additional issues? I wouldn't know where to look for precedents.

* For example, as Google has already pointed out, they are entitled to a verdict on all issues by a single jury. A mistrial on one count of the verdict throws the entire verdict out, to (potentially) be retried by a new jury. How can that happen if a judge gets to pick which parts of the verdict he accepts?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )