Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1295043
 
 

Citations (2)



 
 

Footnotes (446)



 


 



Finishing a Friendly Argument: The Jury and the Historical Origins of Diversity Jurisdiction


Robert L. Jones


Northern Illinois University - College of Law

November 3, 2008

New York University Law Review, Vol. 82, No. 4, 2007

Abstract:     
This Article argues that diversity jurisdiction was intended to funnel politically significant litigation into the federal courts principally because federal officials would have the power to dictate the composition of federal juries. All existing accounts for the origins of diversity jurisdiction ultimately rely upon putative differences between the state and federal benches for their explanations of the jurisdiction's origin. This emphasis on the bench is anachronistic, however, because the jury possessed far more power than the bench to decide cases in eighteenth-century American courts. American juries during this period customarily had the right to decide issues of law as well as fact and were largely beyond the control of the bench. The Framers saw state court juries - independent bodies of citizens with almost unfettered power to resolve legal disputes -as one of the greatest dangers in allo wing ordinary citizens too much control over the governance of the nation. By wresting adjudicative power out of the hands of state court juries and bestowing it upon federal juries whose compositions could be tightly controlled by federal officials, diversity jurisdiction accomplished the Constitution's overarching purpose of checking the operation of "unrestrained" democracy in the states.

Once the federal courts were established, federal officials controlled the composition of federal juries in several ways. In most districts, federal marshals dictated the composition of federal juries by hand-selecting jurors of their choice. In addition, Congress ensured that the political, economic, and social characteristics of federal juries would differ dramatically from their state counterparts by providing that the federal courts would draw their juries overwhelmingly from the urban, commercial centers of the nation. The state courts, by contrast, drew their juries predominantly from the agrarian populations living outside those centers. It is highly unlikely that this pervasive control over the composition of federal juries was an unintended consequence of the Constitution. Instead, as this Article argues, the evidence strongly suggests that the federal officials' control over the composition of federal juries constituted the single most important impetus behind the creation of diversity jurisdiction and a significant rationale for the establishment of the lower federal courts.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 105

Keywords: diversity jurisdiction, federal courts, federalism, juries, legal history, constitutional law, federal jurisdiction

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: November 5, 2008  

Suggested Citation

Jones, Robert L., Finishing a Friendly Argument: The Jury and the Historical Origins of Diversity Jurisdiction (November 3, 2008). New York University Law Review, Vol. 82, No. 4, 2007. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1295043

Contact Information

Robert L. Jones (Contact Author)
Northern Illinois University - College of Law ( email )
Swen Parson Hall
DeKalb, IL 60115
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 618
Downloads: 103
Download Rank: 153,579
Citations:  2
Footnotes:  446

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.453 seconds