Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Production company exec “refutes” Illinois Policy Institute claim
Next Post: Rauner touts Facebook forum
Posted in:
* This was a weird, completely out of the blue special interest bill which zoomed through both chambers right at the end of total Democratic rule…
Illinois' top court has ruled a law that cut civil juries from 12 to six people is unconstitutional. Background: https://t.co/p8thHxhVZS
— Andrew Maloney (@amaloney24) September 22, 2016
Law also raised jurors' pay and was a big priority for IL trial lawyers group. Passed quickly in the waning days of the Quinn admin
— Andrew Maloney (@amaloney24) September 22, 2016
Court struck down both the pay raise and the provision halving jury size. CJ Garman wrote the decision. Kilbride & Thomas abstained
— Andrew Maloney (@amaloney24) September 22, 2016
Article I, section 13, of the Illinois Constitution, on the other hand, reveals an intent on the part of the drafters to maintain common- law characteristics of jury trials. Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 13. Article I, section 13, provides: “The right of trial by jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain inviolate.” Id. The phrase “as heretofore enjoyed” plainly indicates that the drafters intended for certain characteristics of a jury trial to be maintained. For this reason, we construe the right of trial by jury protected by the Illinois Constitution differently than the rights protected by the federal constitution. […]
We recognize that both defendants’ and plaintiffs’ positions have some merit but remain concerned with whether the right to a 12-person jury was “heretofore enjoyed” at the time the 1970 Constitution was drafted. “Our task is limited to determining whether the challenged legislation is constitutional, and not whether it is wise.” […]
There is ample evidence that the drafters at the 1970 Constitutional Convention believed they were specifically preserving the right to a 12-person jury when they adopted the current constitution. […]
Because the size of the jury —12 people—was an essential element of the right of trial by jury enjoyed at the time the 1970 Constitution was drafted, we conclude jury size is an element of the right that has been preserved and protected in the constitution.
*** UPDATE *** Press release…
Doctors from the Illinois State Medical Society (ISMS) and ISMIE Mutual Insurance Company praise the Illinois Supreme Court’s 5-0 decision striking down an unconstitutional mandate to impose a six-person limit in civil jury size. Both organizations voiced concern over the flawed jury reduction legislation, which passed during the final days of Governor Quinn’s administration. The controversial law was considered an outgoing gesture to help personal injury lawyers, because smaller juries are perceived as more favorable to their clients.
“The move to allow six-person juries was misguided from day one,” said ISMS President Thomas M. Anderson, MD. He added that “delegates to both the 1870 and 1970 Illinois Constitutional Conventions considered the merit of six-person juries and purposefully deemed them inappropriate for Illinois. If that’s not an indication of constitutional intent, we don’t know what else could be.”
ISMIE Mutual Chairman Harold L. Jensen, MD offered that “the right to a trial before 12 people is an issue of legal fairness. Research has demonstrated that smaller juries have less diversity, are less deliberative and tend to deliver higher than average awards. Forcing the reduced jury composition is in essence a thumb on the legal scales.”
ISMS and ISMIE Mutual are proud of our advocacy to lead the effort to overturn this onerous law. Illinois’ difficult legal environment got a little bit better today.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Sep 22, 16 @ 9:58 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Production company exec “refutes” Illinois Policy Institute claim
Next Post: Rauner touts Facebook forum
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Can parties continue to voluntarily accept six member juries in civil cases?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Sep 22, 16 @ 10:09 am
There are 102 happy county boards who appropriate those juror fees
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Sep 22, 16 @ 10:14 am
==There are 102 happy county boards who appropriate those juror fees==
Is that true? Or was the increased fee offset by the need for fewer jurors?
Comment by Arthur Sellers Thursday, Sep 22, 16 @ 10:33 am
Quick, everybody shed a tear for the trial lawyers.
Although, with this taken away, is workers comp reform now tougher to pass?
Comment by m Thursday, Sep 22, 16 @ 10:33 am
Yes, the parties can agree to a less than 12 person jury. Anyone who recently served on a jury and hasn’t cashed their check yet should rush to the bank before their county puts a stop payment order on it.
Comment by West Side The Best Side Thursday, Sep 22, 16 @ 10:34 am
This was an expensive boondoggle from the start. Most counties experienced a 33% increase in the cost of their juries. There were also additional costs associated with computer programming necessary to comply with the new law by many jury commissions.
Comment by Stones Thursday, Sep 22, 16 @ 11:00 am
Another conservative constitutional decision by a court which has been labeled “Democratic” by critics.
Comment by walker Thursday, Sep 22, 16 @ 11:01 am
The Rauner-described “corrupt” and “activist” Supreme Court has done what he could not after almost 2 years of calamity and manufactured crises: effectuate a component of his Turnaround Agenda.
Comment by jade me not Thursday, Sep 22, 16 @ 11:28 am
==Can parties continue to voluntarily accept six member juries in civil cases== I don’t think it is legal to sign away a constitutional right even if you want to.
Comment by NoGifts Thursday, Sep 22, 16 @ 11:36 am
====Can parties continue to voluntarily accept six member juries in civil cases== I don’t think it is legal to sign away a constitutional right even if you want to.==
Sure you can. Defendants opt for bench trials (Judge decides, not a jury) all the time!
Comment by so... Thursday, Sep 22, 16 @ 12:00 pm
side note. federal trials use 6 in civil matters.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Sep 22, 16 @ 3:19 pm
So, does Rauner still think the ILSC is “corrupt” because the Trial Lawyers can “donate to them”?
Comment by Hubbub Thursday, Sep 22, 16 @ 3:23 pm