On June 13, 2002, the federal court granted James Poole a Writ of Habeas Corpus, which challenged the constitutionality of his state civil commitment. James Poole alleged that the denial of a state jury trial in his civil commitment violated his federal constitutional right to due process and equal protection. Poole’s attorney Law Professor Peter Erlinder claims that the state of Minnesota stripped Mr. Poole of his right to a jury trial through a series of arbitrary decisions that resulted in his civil confinement. Professor Erlinder states that the right to trial by jury was established and guaranteed in the Magna Carta in 1215, which provided that: “no freeman would be dis-seized, 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. The state claims that it did not deny Poole’s federal constitutional due process right when it denied him a jury trial in his state civil commitment case. The state claims that in Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S. Ct. 1804 (1979), the Court found that states could set their own procedural requirements in civil commitment cases. [Note: This argument by the state might hold water if they could keep from violating U.S. Constitutional protections.] However, like most other states, Minnesota has recognized that the jury trial right, which pre-existed Minnesota’s 1857 Constitution, was retained in the jury trial provision of that document: “The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate, and shall extend of all cases at law without regard to the amount of controversy, but a jury trial may be waived by the parties in all cases, in the manner prescribed by law.” Minn. Constitution of 1857, Art. 1, sec. 4 (1857) Apparently the State Attorney General’s Office has difficulty with reading and comprehension. We read the constitution to stress that a trial by jury SHALL REMAIN INVIOLATE and SHALL EXTEND OF ALL CASE AT LAW WITHOUT REGARD TO THE AMOUNT OF CONTROVERSY. Erlinder went on to express in his brief that 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 commitment 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. Erlinder’s brief outlined how doctrinal confusion was introduced into the jurisprudence of Minnesota. The confusion came from 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 re. Pearson v. Probate Court of Ramsey County, 287 N.W. 297 (Minn. 1939), 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 Constitution was ignored in both of these two cases. The language in the Minnesota Constitution is intelligible and clear to the average reader; however, comprehension may have been lost in the heat of the argument somewhere in history. The Assistant Attorney General’s brief went on to state the following: “However, if this Court does not believe that the lack of Supreme Court authority directly on point disposes of the issue, Appellee asks the Court to consider the following authority, which supports the Minnesota courts decisions. In addressing state procedures in sexual predator civil commitment cases, the Addington Court, in its opinion holding that due process requires only a clear and convincing standard of proof in civil commitment cases as opposed to the higher standard of proof required in criminal cases, stated:” ‘[E]ven though an erroneous confinement should be avoided in the first instance, the layers of professional review and observation of the patient’s condition, and the concern of family and friends generally will provide continuous opportunities for an erroneous commitment to be corrected.’ Addington, 441 U.S. at 428-29, 99 S. Ct. at 1811 Some legal experts claim that the states brief contains a considerable amount of "FLUFF". There is no doubt that the possibility of illegally detaining several hundred, if not a few thousand persons over the last 60 years, is embarrassing. The fact of the matter is our loved ones are possibly being illegally detained, and if the state is wrong, the wrong must be righted immediately. This may be an opportunity for the state to honorably humble itself and save us, the taxpayers, millions of dollars in the future. This may also by an opportunity to fix the already broken system of the civil commitment/preventative detention of sex offenders. |
| State Court Answers to Jury Trial Issue Before the Federal Court |
 |
|
| To view appellant and appellee briefs, click on the link below to go to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Website (Case No. 02-2629) www.ca8.uscourts.gov/index.html |
 |
|