Constitutional Law--In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation--Denial of Jury Trial in Complex Litigation
Clyde L. Ball · University of North Carolina School of Law Scholarship Repository (University of North Carolina Hospitals) · 1981
The seventh amendment commands that "fi]n [s]uits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved."' The recent move toward denying trial by jury in complex litigation has sparked a significant controversy over the constitutionality of such denials.2 In its decision in In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 3 the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the jury trial right may be denied if a case is so complex a jury cannot understand it.Finding that the fifth amendment right to due process guarantees a rational factflinder and that an uncomprehending jury cannot reach a reasoned decision, the court concluded that the more fundamental guarantee of due process outweighs the jury trial guarantee of the seventh amendment.4 Japanese Products puts the Third Circuit at odds with the Ninth Circuit, which has held that jury trial may not be denied because of mere complexity.5 In Zenith Radio Corporation v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.,6 separate antitrust actions by National Union Electric Corporation (NUE) and Zenith Radio Corporation against several Japanese electronics companies were consolidated for trial in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.The complaints alleged numerous violations of the antidumping and antitrust laws 7 as part of a pervasive conspiracy to destroy domestic competition in the American electronics market.Both plaintiffs demanded a jury trial.Fourteen of the defendants moved to strike the demand, arguing that the case was too massive 1.U.S. CONST.amend.VII. 2. See e.g., Arnold, A Historical Inquiry into the Right to Trial by Jury in Complex Civil Litigation, 128-U.PA.L. REv.829 (1980); Devlin, Jury TrialofComplex Cases: English Practice at the Time ofthe Seventh Amendment, 80 COLUM.L. REv.43 (1980); Note, The Right to an Incompetent Jury: Protracted Commercial Litigation and the Seventh Amendment, 10 CONN.L. REv.775 (1978); Note, The Right to a Jury Trialin Complex CivilLitigation, 92 HARV.L. Rav.898 (1979); Comment, The Right to Strike the Jury Trial Demand in Complex Litigation, 34 U. MIAMi L. Rv. 243 (1980); Best Brief, 1980 National Moot Court Competition, 56 CHL-KENT L. REv.911 (1980).Even Chief Justice Warren Burger has advocated studying ways to limit or eliminate jury trial in long, complex litigation.Remarks of Warren E. Burger to Meeting of Conference of State Chief Justices (Aug.7, 1979) (unpublished speech; copy on file in offices of N.C.L. REv.) (reported at 48 U.S.L.W. 2118, 2118-19 (Aug.14, 1979)).3. 631 F.2d 1069 (3d Cir.1980).4. Id at 1086. 5.In re U.S. Financial Sec.Litigation, 609 F.2d 411 (9th Cir.1979), cert.denied, 446 U.S. 929 (1980).6. 478 F. Supp.889 (E.D. Pa.1979) (memorandum and order of certification).7. NUE asserted violations of the 1916 Antidumping Act, 15 U.S.C. § 72 (1976), the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § § 1, 2 (1976) (conspiracy to restrain trade), and the Wilson Tariff Act, 15 U.S.C. § 8 (1976) (applying Sherman Act to import trade).In addition to these violations Zenith alleged violation of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13(a) (1976) (price-fixing), and the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.