The Short Constitution

by Martin J. Wade; William F. Russell

“In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.”[71]

Of course there is often more or less controversy about property of small value, where the expense and delay of jury trials might possibly be oppressive, but in any case involving more than twenty dollars in value, triable under the common law, which includes practically all cases except those peculiar cases triable in Chancery, or in Courts of Equity, the parties are entitled to a trial by jury. That is, instead of introducing their evidence and having the judge decide what the truth is between them, the parties are entitled to have a jury of men from the ordinary occupations of life hear the evidence and say from the evidence what is the truth.

And furthermore, the people provided in the Constitution that:

“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.”[72]

Here again is the right to a jury trial, and the benefit of a jury trial, and to a trial according to the established rules and precedents of the common law courts carefully preserved.

Now my friends, I know that there is much confusion in your minds about trials in court. I do not expect you to know all about trials. We are studying the guaranties of the Constitution so that we shall learn human rights—our rights—under the Constitution. I am talking to you about the safeguards of the Constitution so you shall know your rights, especially so that you will always venerate the Constitution which guards your rights, and defend it against those who may assail it. But I do want you to have a clear idea of what a trial in court is. I want you to know the purpose of the long days of examination of witnesses, the objections of the attorneys to certain questions asked, the rulings of the court, and the arguments of counsel.

The main purpose, aim, and object of every lawsuit, as trials are usually termed by people who are not lawyers, is to find the truth. The proceedings in court in every lawsuit are a continuous search for the truth. If in disputes we could agree to what the truth is, there would be few lawsuits to try.

A lawsuit only arises where there is a dispute to settle. If people agreed about their rights there would be little need of courts. In criminal cases, the government through the grand jury charges by indictment that a man committed a certain crime. The government says the man did it. He denies it by a plea of not guilty. He says he did not. The trial before the petit jury is merely a search for the truth [pg 127] about the charge. What is the truth about the matter in dispute, that is all that is involved in an ordinary lawsuit.

Picture two boys in a dispute about which owns a ball. One positively asserts that it is his, that his father bought it and gave it to him. The other is just as sure that it is his. He says that his brother gave it to him. They quarrel so excitedly that a neighbor coming across the street asks the cause of the trouble. They tell him their claims and ask him to decide. One boy points out a rough spot on the ball which he insists was caused by a blow from his bat while he was playing in his own yard. The other says that his brother gave him a ball with red and white stitches. The neighbor, after hearing these and many other claims, decides the case, giving the ball to the boy whom he finds to be the owner.

In this we have every element of a lawsuit. The dispute, the court (the neighbor), the witnesses (the boys), and the judgment based upon what the neighbor finds to be the truth from the evidence before him. That is all that any court or jury can do, but under the Constitution in cases involving life or liberty every possible safeguard is provided so that the truth may be found, so that justice may be done.