Why did the framers of the constitution include the 7th amendment in the Constituion ?

Question

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 reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Answer 1

What I would guess,

Even today you often see differences of class and monetary standing among officials within government office, as I'm sure was the case in the framing of the constitutional amendments.  Wealthier people back then were more likely to be educated.  

If I were a working class citizen in the late 1700's or early 1800's, I wouldn't want an old-money justice of the peace, or somebody of a comparable role, having sole decisive power in a dispute concerning something over which I, and potentially all my family, had sweat and toiled.  If I'm going to a court to seek the just opinion of a third party, person or jury, I would want those people to empathize with my position on one level or another.

But, I must admit, Curly's answer blows mine out of the water.

Answer 2

While Curly is mostly correct (in that the 7th amendment secured the right to trial by jury in civil cases), he is incorrect in what the 7th Amendment guaranteed.  The re-examination clause (dealing with re-examination of facts determined by the trier of fact, most often a jury) could not be re-examined.  This deals with the common law understanding and corresponding Constitutional provisions regarding the appellate process.  Appeals Courts review cases under various standards of review, which vary based upon the specific inquiry at issue.  For example, for factual questions, such as those decided by a jury, could not be re-examined.  The only basis for review was whether the facts as determined were based on LEGALLY insufficient evidence.  For legal rulings of the court below, the common law tradition and more importantly later developments in both state and federal courts recognize a tripartate system of review:  de novo, abuse of discretion, and clearly erroneous.  Though they vary between states and between state and federal, the essentials are mostly consistent.  For some matters, the trial judge is vested with discretion.  In such circumstances, the court ordinarily defers absent abuse.  For other issues, the court reviews decisions for clear error or determinations against the weight of the evidence.  For purely legal conclusions, the de novo (afresh or anew from the Latin) gives no deference to the lower determination.

The keys to the 7th Amendment were a) extension and protection of trial by jury, b) limitations on appelatte courts.

Curly is also incorrect to refer to a jury of ones peers.  While generally understood to be part of the right to trial by jury in the modern legal system, the idea of peers on a jury is thoroughly modern.  For most of our history, jury service extended to only those roughly approximating the voting populace (i.e. white males owning property of age).  As suffrage was extended, so too was jury service.

Hope that helps.

Answer 3

The 7th Amendment establishes the right to a trial by jury in civil cases; whereas the 6th Amendment establishes the right to a trial by jury in criminal cases....as well as the right to a speedy trial, due notice, right to counsel, etc. (most of these rights were determined by the Supreme Court in various cases and were read into the meaning the the 6th Amendment).

However--the 7th Amendment means that if there is a matter at hand where the disagreement is over $20.00 or more, then you are entitled to a civil trial. It also means that any verdict decided by a jury in a civil case cannot be redecided unless the rules of common law (or judicial procedure) states that an appeal can be filed (which in most jurisdictions it can).

The reason that they included this amendment is because in England and many other countries at the time--civil case, much like criminal cases, were not necessarily entitled to a jury of peers. They framers wanted to extend this right to civil cases as well as criminal cases, particularly since many of them had issues with civil cases--in which they deal with land matters, rights to property, etc. Many of the barristers and judges in England became tyrannical because they had no one to bring them down which lead to an out of control judicial system and the framers wished to see something a bit more just.