"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."

Common law was thousands of years worth of laws established in Britain by judges who set precedence from their decisions in trials throughout the years. Today, these type of suits are more commonly known as civil suits. I'm sure, in the time of the Seventh Amendment's author, that twenty dollar suits weren't as frequent as they are today. Quite honestly, I doubt there is one lawyer in America today that would take a case less than twenty dollars.

So, in civil suits where either sides sues for more than twenty dollars, this amendment requires said suits to be tried before a jury. It also protects from double jeopardy in civil suits in saying that nothing decided by a jury can be re-tried and decided upon again in any court, except according to the precedence of common law, which, as far as I know, allows for an appeal to an appeals court and then another one to the supreme court, be it on either the state or the federal level. It's a very comprehensive amendment for being so short.
________________________________________________________

Brian Wojtalewicz: Would you disregard victims of real medical malpractice?

The so-called medical malpractice "reformers" are intent on slamming the door of justice in the face of families like Matthew Kuttner's. He was only 3 when his parents entrusted him to their local hospital and an ear, nose and throat specialist for a routine tonsillectomy. He died on the operating table. The doctor failed to keep track of and remove pieces of excised tissue, which went into the toddler's lungs and slowly suffocated him. The hospital attendant Matthew was left with failed to appropriately react to the distress signs.
Jurors in Minnesota's conservative Goodhue County heard evidence from experts on both sides and found that the doctor and attendant failed to use the care recognized as standard. They set $1.8 million as justice for Matthew's family.
Would a politician have the guts to walk into that courtroom, look into the eyes of those jurors and the Kuttner family, and tell them that they were wrong -- that justice should be no more than $250,000? Would he or she dare to tell them that politicians in Washington know better, even without hearing and seeing the evidence, because of their talks with insurance lobbyists (who have donated millions in campaign contributions)?
Imagine yourself as Linda McDougal, lying in a hospital bed in St. Paul after both of your breasts were surgically removed. Imagine being told by a doctor that it was all a mistake -- you never really had breast cancer.
No, you really can't imagine it -- which is why the campaign of the tort reformers has found fertile ground in our society.
Insurance lobbyists and many politicians, mostly Republicans, are trying to establish law that tells citizens like Linda that the insurance corporation for the negligent doctor will pay her no more than $250,000 for her pain and emotional distress.
Try putting yourself into the body of the 20-year-old first-time expectant mother for whom I did a trial in St. Cloud a couple of years ago. At an early checkup with the doctor on her pregnancy, a colposcopy was recommended. In that procedure, the cervix is coated with a 4 percent acidic solution, and certain infections will appear when viewed with a colposcope by the doctor. The doctor, the hospital lab and the registered nurse screwed up, using a 100 percent acidic solution and continuing with the procedure despite the woman's pleas to stop. They thought she was just a hypersensitive type.
A jury in conservative Stearns County saw the photographs and rendered a verdict of $400,000. People like U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, whose district this young lady lived in, are essentially saying that they know better and that people like young mothers should be limited to $250,000.
Insurance and other large corporations, along with such politicians, have propagandized the claim that big verdicts are the cause of skyrocketing health care costs. This claim has been debunked by a number of studies. One is "Falling Claims and Rising Premiums in the Medical Malpractice Insurance Industry," commissioned by the Center for Justice & Democracy. It finds that "doctors have been unnecessarily price-gouged for several years as insurance industry surpluses have ballooned to unprecedented levels."
Not only would caps on damages be cruel to those most badly harmed by malpractice, they simply don't lower premiums for doctors. The October 2008 issue of the Medical Liability Monitor (a medical-insurance journal) showed that the average premium for Minnesota's internists, general surgeons and OB/GYN specialists is the second lowest among all the states. Similar doctors in California, which has had a $250,000 medical liability cap for years, pay more than three times the premium a Minnesota doctor pays. Texas also has a $250,000 cap, and its doctors pay more than four times what a Minnesota doctor pays in malpractice premiums. Minnesota has no cap on damages, preferring to let a jury of citizens decide. Get the picture?

I chose this article because it deals with the juries that are required by the Seventh Amendment in civil suits.




I chose this video, obviously, because it talks directly about the Seventh Amendment, and translates into contemporary English for easier understanding.