| Dr. James Poole filed a federal habeas corpus challenging the legality of his civil confinement pursuant to a state court order. Dr. Poole claimed that his civil commitment was unconstitutional because he was denied a jury trial. The federal court stated that: “an individual is not permitted to take an appeal in a federal habeas corpus proceeding without first securing a certificate of appealability (“COA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)1)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1) The federal court also stated that it would not grant an order of COA unless the petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518, 522 (8th Cir. 1997). The court further stated that the “petitioner must show that the issues to be raised on appeal are ‘debatable among reasonable jurists’ that different courts ‘could resolve the issues differently,’ or that the issues otherwise ‘deserve further proceedings’.” Fliger v. Delo, 16 F.3d 878, 882-83 (8th Cir. 1994) citing Lozado v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430, 432 (1991) (per curiam); Cox v. Norris 133 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 1997). The federal court granted Mr. Pool’s request for appealability on June 13, 2002, stating that “it is clear that the issue of whether a jury trial is required before a person may be committed indefinitely is one that is ‘debatable among reasonable jurists’.” “Petitioner has met his burden, and the requested certificate of appealability will issue.” Petitioner’s attorney, Constitutional Law Professor Peter Erlinder of the William Mitchell College of Law, has addressed the issue, which is now before the Federal Court, as follows: The State of Minnesota stripped Dr. Poole of his right to a jury trial through a series of arbitrary decisions that resulted in civil confinement, without a jury, in violation of his right to equal Protection of the law The ancient right to trial by jury, required when liberty is at issue, was first guaranteed in the Magna Carta in 1215. Which provided that: “no freeman would be disseized, dispossessed or imprisoned except by judgment of his peers...” There is no question that English Common Law required a jury trial in criminal proceedings in which liberty was at issue, as does the Sixth Amendment but a jury was also required in a civil context when liberty was at issue. Like most other states, Minnesota has recognized that the jury trial rights, which pre-existed Minnesota’s 1857 Constitution, were retained in the jury trial provisions of that document: “The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, and shall extend of all cases at law without regard to the amount in controversy, but a jury trial may be waived by the parties in all cases, in the manner prescribed by law.” Minn. Const. of 1857, Art. 1, sec. 4(1857) The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that this right applies unchanged since 1857 in causes of action other than civil commitment. See, Smith v. Bailen 258 N.W.2d 118 (Minn. 1977). The right to a civil jury trial in civil commitments was not only part of the common law at the time the Minnesota Constitution went into effect, but was actually codified in the Territorial Statutes of 1851 in a manner that parallels the ancient Chancellor’s Commission/jury trial procedure described above. Doctrinal confusion was introduced into the jurisprudence of Minnesota in two cases from this Century, Vinstad v. State Board of Control 211 N.W. 12 (Minn. 1926), a case which upheld the use of a jury, and State ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court of Ramsey County, 287 N.W. 297 (Minn 1939),2 aff’d. 309 U.S. 270 (1940), interpreted Vinstad as holding that the right to a jury did not apply to civil commitments. Both cases involved challenges to procedures in civil commitment proceedings authorized under state statutes. The Minnesota courts have consistently held that failure to provide a jury trial, guaranteed by the Minnesota Constitution, is reversible error. See, Olson v. Aretz 346 N.W.2d 178 (Minn. App. l964) (review denied) and Landgraf v, Ellsworth 126 N.W.2d 766 (Minn. 1964). Further, legislative enactments, which grant the court discretion to deny the right to a jury trial, otherwise guaranteed by the Minnesota Constitution, are invalid. Westerlund v. Peterson 197 N.W. 110 (1923) and the federal courts will not enforce state laws that violate the right to a jury. Grover v. Merritt Development Co.,7 F.2d 917 (D.C. Minn. 1925). The effect of the clause of the Minnesota Constitution is, first, to recognize the right of trial by jury as it existed in the territory of Minnesota at the time of the adoption of the State Constitution; and second, to continue such right unimpaired and inviolate. It neither takes from nor adds to the right as it previously existed, but adopts it unchanged. Wherever the right of trial by jury could be had under the territorial laws, it may now be had, and the legislature cannot abridge it; and those cases which were triable by the court, without intervention of the jury, may still be so tried. Whallon v. Bancrof,. 4 Minn. 109, 113 (Gil. 70, 74) (1860), cited in Smith v. Bailen 258 N.W.2d 118, 120 (Minn. 1977). _________________________ 1 The Magna Carta. Cited at Richard S. Arnold. Trial by Jury: The Constitutional Right to a Jury of Twelve in Civil Trials. 22 Hofstra L. Rev. 1,4 (1993). 2 In Pearson the petitioner was civilly committed as a “psychopathic personality” pursuant to ch. 369. Laws of 1939 which provides that: “Except as otherwise herein or hereafter provided, all laws now in force or effect hereafter enacted relating to insane persons, to persons alleged to be insane, and to persons found to be insane, shall apply with like force and effect to persons having a psychopathic personality....” Territorial Laws of Minnesota, Article III, Sec. XXVI at seq. (1851). |
| The Right to a Jury Trial in Civil Commitment Proceedings in Minnesota, Prior Adoption of the Minnesota Constitution |
| To view appellant and appellee briefs, click on the link below to go to 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Website (Case No. 02-2629): www.ca8.uscourts.gov/index.html |
 |
| Does the Absence of Jury Trial for the Civil Commitment of Minnesota Sex Offenders Violate Due Process and Equal Protection? |
 |
|
|
|
|