It is a foundation of our criminal justice system that those accused of a crime are entitled to a jury of their peers.
In civil cases, however, that right is less concrete. In fact, in civil cases where the constitutional right to a jury is questioned, the courts must look back to the early days of Wisconsin statehood to determine if a claimant is constitutionally entitled to a jury.
In June, the Wisconsin Supreme Court clarified the law regarding the right to a jury in civil cases when it upheld a $9 million verdict against a pharmaceutical manufacturer for deceptive trade practices and Medicaid fraud. State v. Abbott Labs, 341 Wis. 2d 510, 816 N.W.2d 145 (2012).
The court upheld the jury finding that Pharmacia, a large pharmaceutical company, reported inflated average wholesale drug prices which caused Medicaid to overpay for prescription medication. On appeal, Pharmacia and its co-defendants alleged that the state was not constitutionally entitled to a jury trial on the deceptive trade practices claims and the Medicaid fraud claims.
The Supreme Court made clear that unless the right to a jury trial is provided in the statute that creates the cause of action, the right to a civil jury trial only exists constitutionally as it did at the time the Wisconsin Constitution was adopted in 1848.
In many cases the right to a jury is not questioned. For example, a claimant is, of course, entitled to a jury in a tort claim like an auto accident. As laws change, technology grows, and new causes of action are created, the constitutional right to a jury becomes less clear. In instances where the right to a jury trial is questioned, Wisconsin courts apply a test in which they determine whether there was a counterpart claim in 1848 that would have allowed for a jury trial. See Village Food & Liquor Mart v. H&S Petroleum Inc., 254 Wis. 2d 478, 647 N.W.2d 177(2002).
The reason for the historical focus of this test lies in the wording of the Wisconsin Constitution. Article I, Section 5 of the Wisconsin Constitution states that “[t]he right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, and shall extend to all cases at law.” The Wisconsin Supreme Court has determined that this language, “shall remain inviolate,” means that the right to a jury trial is preserved as it existed in 1848.
A strict application of that test may lead to the assumption that in Abbott Labs, the state was not entitled to a jury trial. After all, Medicaid certainly did not exist in 1848, and therefore there could have been no claim for Medicaid fraud in 1848. The court does not apply the test so strictly, however. The court looks to see if there is an analogous claim in existence in 1848.
In Abbott Labs, the court said that the deceptive trade practices act claim was analogous to the common law claim of “cheating,” and that the Medicaid fraud claim was analogous to common law fraud. With both causes of action, the Supreme Court looked at the elements necessary to prove each claim and compared them to the elements of their common law counterparts.
Exact symmetry is not required; rather, the old and new causes of action must be sufficiently similar and have a similar purpose to be considered essential counterparts.
Though the state prevailed in this instance and had a constitutional right to a jury, it is not always the case. It is ultimately the past that will dictate what future cases have a constitutional right to a civil jury.