Is a Jury Trial a Constitutional Right in the U.S. and in Washington State? Yes? But, Not Provided and Not Enforced.

The U.S. and Washington State Constitutions' texts provide a jury trial as a constitutional right. Article I. section 21 of the Washington State Constitution states: "The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate."

Though a request for a trial by jury was formally filed at the request of a judge in docket #828 of case # 20-3-06035-0 SEA, a trial by jury was not provided. Why?

After experiencing repeated civil rights violations and discrimination in King County Superior Court interactions throughout the years of 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023, a party in case #20-3-06035-0 requested a trial by jury to get fairer treatment and to get out of the broken system as soon as possible. The request was verbally denied by the case's judge and not provided despite a written request. Is a trial by jury a constitutional right in Washington state or not?

Based on reading the U.S. and Washington State Constitutions, it appears that a trial by jury is constitutional right for the people of Washington and no amendment to this right is published on the Washington state website.

Who enforces constitutional rights of individuals in Washington state? When a right to a jury trial is not provided after being requested, no written waiver of a right to a jury trial is filed, and no Washington state attorney is willing to seek a remedy what recourse is available what recourse is available?

Why did a trial with a jury was needed? (following text provided by party in the case)

I filed a law brief requesting a jury trial and medical accommodations, and shared that the Court's order in docket #685 forced me to be Pro Se. The Court order in docket #685 reads: “Respondent shall be prohibited from spending, transferring, loaning, encumbering, distributing or otherwise disposing of any money to any person, corporation, or any other entity during the pendency of this action” (docket 685, page 3, paragraph VIII). The Judge did not say that the Court's order was incorrect in any way, nor correct my understanding of the court's order that spending for legal representation was prohibited.

Without legal representation, I was forced to use every available moment that I could to read, understand and respond to deadlines, filings and orders which increased the very computer screen time that doctor prescribe be minimized to minimize aggravating my disabilities. Six doctors recommended medical accommodations. Medical accommodations advised by doctors were not provided by the Court. Equal discovery was requested but unaddressed in docket #685, even when it was documented to the Discovery Master that opposing Counsel Matthew Cooper provided: scrambled evidence files, many "I don't know responses," acknowledged missing Discovery Master calls, and skipped a scheduled CR26 meeting without ever responding to the voicemail left.

Forensic accounting and tracing of Petitioner's accounts were requested to fairly characterize property and evaluate a prenuptial agreement, but were not provided for trial. This resulted in the Court findings relying insufficient evidence to support findings. Evidence presumed in findings was found to be incorrect and findings conflicted with some values provided by both financial experts. Four values were listed as "unknown." Expert 1's valuation report was admitted over objection, with no basis given, and was found to be in violation of professional standards and egregiously wrong. Expert #2, the Court found " not credible" and the basis of all his values incorrect, yet relied on his values as the evidence for nearly all the Court's values; even though the expert which the Court felt was more credible stated that the values used by the Court were "inaccurate and cannot be relied upon."  Such unjust actions confirmed the necessity of a jury trial.

Jury Trial – Basis for Denial

In Washington State, divorce cases are typically decided through a bench trial, which means the judge makes the final decision rather than a jury. This is standard practice for family law matters, including divorce, as they are considered equitable proceedings rather than legal ones. In the context of divorce cases, the distinction between equitable and legal proceedings is important. Legal typically involve claims for monetary damages or specific legal rights. Equitable proceedings involve requests for non-monetary relief, such as injunctions or specific actions. In divorce cases, the court is often asked to make decisions about property division, child custody, and spousal support, which are considered equitable issues. The court aims to achieve a fair and just outcome based on the specific circumstances of each case. Divorce cases are generally handled as equitable proceedings because they involve the court making decisions to ensure fairness rather than simply awarding money. I understand in Washington State, a trial by jury is generally not available for equitable proceedings. This includes divorce cases, which are considered equitable rather than legal. The Washington Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial for legal claims, but this right does not extend to equitable claims. Equitable proceedings involve the court making decisions to achieve fairness, such as property division, child custody, and spousal support in divorce cases. These matters are typically decided by a judge rather than a jury.

Jury Trial – Prenuptial Agreement is Rooted in Law. Therefore, Denial of a Jury is an Error?

A prenuptial agreement is generally considered a legal contract rather than an equitable one. It is a legally binding agreement made between two people before they get married, detailing the property rights and financial arrangements in the event of a divorce. The primary purpose of our prenuptial agreement was to protect the assets and interests of both parties, ensuring clarity and avoiding potential disputes during a divorce. While the enforcement of a prenuptial agreement may involve equitable considerations, such as fairness and voluntariness, the agreement itself is rooted in contract law.

The distinction between law and equity was not to be compromised by state laws. In cases initiated in state court where the court treated the suit as a whole as an equitable proceeding even though it potentially included legal claims, such as a proceeding upon a contract that included determination of validity and of the amount due, the case would have been removed to federal equity jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court determined that when an action at law in state court furnished an adequate and complete remedy, the existence of a potential cause of action in courts of equity pursuant to a separate state statute could not enlarge the federal courts’ equity jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court resolved the difficulty by stressing the fundamental nature of the jury trial right and protecting it against diminution through resort to equitable principles. In Beacon Theatres v. Westover, a plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction barring the defendant from instituting an antitrust action against it; the defendant filed a counterclaim alleging violation of the antitrust laws and asking for treble damages. The Supreme Court held that the district court erred in denying the defendant a jury trial on all issues in the antitrust controversy because the complaint for declaratory relief “presented basically equitable issues.” The trial court’s error, in the Court’s view, would compel the defendant to split its antitrust case in two, trying part to a judge and part to a jury, impermissibly delaying and subordinating its counterclaim that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure required it to bring within the same action. Long-standing equity principles, according to the Court, dictated that “only under the most imperative circumstances which in view of the flexible procedures of the Federal Rules we cannot now anticipate, can the right to a jury trial of legal issues be lost through prior determination of equitable claims.”

Jury Trial Legal Standard (source Aubol Invs., LLC v. Taylor)

The Washington State Constitution provides an inviolate right to a jury trial. Wash. Const., art. I, section 21; Brown v. Safeway Stores, 94 Wn.2d 359, 365, 617 P.2d 704 (1980). The Washington Supreme Court has "consistently interpreted this constitutional provision as guaranteeing those rights to trial by jury which existed at the time of the adoption of the constitution." Brown, 94 Wn.2d at 365. Therefore, there is a right to a jury trial when the action is purely legal in nature, and there is not right to a jury trial when the action is purely equitable in nature. Id. "The overall nature of the action is determined by considering all the issues raised by all of the pleadings." Id.

However, when the pleadings present both legal and equitable issues, the trial court has wide discretion to allow a jury on" 'some, none, or all issues presented.'" Id. at 367 (quoting Scavenius v. Manchester Port Dist., 2 Wn.App. 126, 129, 467 P.2d 372 (1970)). The trial court must determine whether the issues are primarily equitable or primarily legal. Id. at 368; see also Shepler Constr., Inc. v. Leonard, 175 Wn.App. 239, 249, 306 P.3d 988 (2013). In making this determination, the trial court should consider a variety of factors, including, but not limited to the following:

(1) who seeks the equitable relief;

(2) is the person seeking the equitable relief also demanding trial of the issues to the

jury;

(3) are the main issues primarily legal or equitable in their nature;

(4) do the equitable issues present complexities in the trial which will affect the 

orderly determination of such issues by a jury;

(5) are the equitable and legal issues easily separable;

(6) in the exercise of such discretion, great weight should be given to the constitutional

right of trial by jury and if the nature of the action is doubtful, a jury trial should be

allowed;

(7) the trial court should go beyond the pleadings to ascertain the real issues in dispute

before making the determination as to whether or not a jury trial should be granted

on all or part of such issues."

Brown, 94 Wn.2d at 368 (quoting Scavenius, 2 Wn.App. at 129-30). The court must also examine the remedy sought to determine whether it is equitable or legal in nature. Auburn Mechanical, Inc. v. Lydig Const., Inc., 89 Wn.App. 893, 899, 951 P.2d 311, review denied, 136 Wn.2d 1009 (1998). "Any doubt should be resolved in favor of a jury trial, in deference to the constitutional nature of the right." Shepler Constr., 175 Wn.App. at 249-50. We review the trial court's decision to strike a jury demand for an abuse of discretion. Brown, 94 Wn.2d at 368.

A court's decision is manifestly unreasonable if it is outside the range of acceptable choices, given the facts and the applicable legal standard; it is based on untenable grounds if the factual findings are unsupported by the record; it is based on untenable reasons if it is based on an incorrect standard or the facts do not meet the requirements of the correct standard.

Here, the trial court abused its discretion by basing its decision on untenable grounds and untenable reasons.

       First, the record does not support the trial court's determination that Taylor's claim was purely equitable.

       Second, the trial court failed to apply the correct legal standard by neither weighing nor considering any of the seven factors outlined by our supreme court in Brown. Brown, 94 Wn.2d at 368. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion by striking Taylor's jury demand.

Jury Trial – Denial Remedies?

If a person's right to a jury trial in a civil case has been denied, they have several potential recourses:

      File a Motion for a New Trial: The party can file a motion for a new trial, arguing that the denial of a jury trial was a legal error that affected the outcome of the case.

      Appeal the Decision: The party can appeal the court's decision to a higher court. On appeal, they can argue that the denial of a jury trial violated their constitutional rights under the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases at law.

      Seek Relief through Post-Trial Motions: The party can file post-trial motions, such as a motion for judgment as a matter of law or a motion to alter or amend the judgment, to address the denial of a jury trial.

      Petition for Writ of Mandamus: In some cases, the party can petition for a writ of mandamus, asking a higher court to order the lower court to grant a jury trial. This is an extraordinary remedy and is typically used when there is no other adequate means to address the denial.

Section 1983, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is indeed a crucial federal law that allows individuals to sue state or local officials for civil rights violations. This law is often invoked in cases of police misconduct, such as excessive force, but it can apply to any abuse of authority by officials acting in their official capacity.

When a right to a jury trial is not provided after being requested, no written waiver of a right to a jury trial is filed, and no Washington state attorney is willing to seek a remedy what recourse is available for individuals? Who enforces constitutional rights of individuals in Washington state?