Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

Don’t Waive Goodbye to Your Right to a Jury Trial
August 30, 2019
The Seventh Amendment guarantees a right to a jury trial in cases arising under the common law. But even that fundamental right can be waived if not properly asserted in the lower court.

The Ninth Circuit reminded us of that recently in Edmo v. Corizon, Inc., No. 19-35017, 2019 WL 3978329 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2019). There, a transgendered woman suffering from gender dysphoria was an inmate in an Idaho prison. Although she had complained to the prison’s medical staff about the distress she was under and had previously tried to self-castrate, the prison denied her request for gender confirmation surgery. After a second attempt at self-castration, she sued the Idaho Department of Correction and the company running the prison, among others. She then moved for a preliminary injunction that would allow her to get the surgery, and after four months of discovery, the court held a three-day evidentiary hearing.

The district court found that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to the inmate’s gender dysphoria in violation of the Eighth Amendment and that she was entitled to the gender confirmation surgery. The court noted that “the nature of the relief requested in this case, coupled with the extensive evidence presented by the parties over a 3-day evidentiary hearing, [may have] effectively converted these proceedings into a final trial on the merits of the plaintiff’s request for permanent injunctive relief.” On appeal, the defendants argued that the district court had improperly converted the evidentiary hearing on a preliminary injunction into a final trial on the merits and that, consequently, the defendants had been denied their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed. Affirming the district court (with some slight modifications), the Ninth Circuit wrote that the defendants “vigorously participated in the evidentiary hearing without ever raising the right to a jury trial” and “remained silent in the face of statements from the district court that it was considering treating” and in fact had treated “the hearing as a final trial on the merits, which made it clear that the court ‘intended to make fact determinations.’” Likewise, the defendants “remained silent despite the district court asking twice whether the hearing was one for a permanent injunction — as clear a time as any to raise any concerns about a jury trial.”

Because the defendants did not raise the issue of a jury trial until appeal, failing to raise it even after the district court’s ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the defendants waived their right to a jury trial.
 
TIPS
  • As always, know your jurisdiction’s rules for preservation. 
  • If a jury trial is desired and a right to one exists in your case, assert your client’s right to it early in the process.
  • Be wary of evidentiary hearings on preliminary matters with the potential to morph into final hearings on the merit — particularly when the trial court tells you that’s what it’s going to do! Ensure you make any objections, including to the transformation of the hearing, and raise any issues that you would raise at trial if it seems to be trending that direction. 
Authored By
Image: Peter D. Webster
Peter D. Webster
Related Practices
Appellate & Trial Support Litigation and Trials
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.