Abstract
The Judd court identified two "analytically simple and reasonable" schools of thought with respect to the right to a trial by jury. In choosing one, it failed to adequately analyze the history behind Utah's right to a jury trial. The debates among delegates at the state. constitutional convention clearly indicate that the right to a jury trial was to be left alone aside from a permissible tinkering with the number ofjurors. Instead of looking to the convention or relying on the plethora of cases that state that damages are within the constitutional dominion of the jury, the Judd majority followed an opinion based on dissimilar constitutional language and sleight-of-hand reasoning. If Utah's constitution is to be more than shadows, article I, section 10 must protect a jury's findings of fact. It is suspect reasoning to argue that the jury need only assess a party's damages for the jury to perform its function. Of what use is this assessment if it is to be subsequently curtailed?
Recommended Citation
Weinacker, Adam
(2009)
"Judd and the Jury: How the Utah Supreme Court Dealt a Blow to the Constitutional Right to a Jury Trial by Allowing a Cap on Pain and
Suffering Damages,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 2009:
No.
1, Article 10.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2009/iss1/10