[Footnote 1 (1996 Supplement)] In Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993),

indiana statutes about jury trials extend the rights outlined in the state constitution, to the extent that they don't conflict with court rules.

second request for discovery

do you plan to
any witnesses? any written evidence?

39) note No freeman shall be seized, or imprisoned, or dispossessed, or outlawed, or in any way destroyed; nor will we condemn him, nor will we commit him to prison, excepting by the legal judgement of his peers, or by the laws of the land.

(41) note

Memorandum on Right to a jury trial in marion county environmental court.

The right to a jury trial 12:06 12-06-02
in civil cases is assured under the Indiana Bill of Rights, to the extent that the right existed in 1852.
The origins of the jury are lost in norse prehistory. Magna Charta article 39 assured a jury of one's peers.circa 1215.
John Lilbourne, as associate of Cromwell, is regarded as the founder of jury nullification as reflected in the Indiana Bill of Rights. . The trials of Penn and Zenger influenced the founders. The Declaration of Independence cited infringement of the right to jury tial as one of the bases for succession. The 1816 constitution provided for trial by jury. The current
text dates from 1852.
Historically juries were found in law courts, while equity was done in eclesiastical courts without juries.
Delaware is an example of a state which maintains a court of chancery for equitable cases, primarily
stockholder disputes.
Equitable cases include injunctions, accountings, specific performance of a real estate contract, foreclosures.
The right to jury trial does not attach to solely equitable actions.
Defendant here has never been seeking a jury trial on the injunctive aspects of the cases. Injunctive relief is within the sound discretion of the court. Defendant's request for a jury trial is directed at the issue of damages under the code.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The united states constitution's bill of rights, the 7th amendment, maintains the same law-equity distinction at issue under the indiana constitution. So federal cases are instructuve as to this point, although not controlling.
.
Civl danages are a matter of law rather than equity. In indiana prior to 1850, an action for nuisance was triable by jury. Such cases, involving civil damages for land use issues, are the most closely analogous cases. The marion county health department code did not exist, but the regulation of land use had a long history.

The common misconception that the right to a jury trial does not apply to petty cases is based on the partial incorporation doctrine under the 14th amendment. As a matter of federal constitutional law, there is no right under the 14th Amendment to a jury trial in petty cases in municipal or state court. This does not undo the right as a matter of state constitutional law. Indiana's founders considered the right to trial by jury as fundamental.

The cases brought by the marion county health department in the environmental court are normally captioned as
injunctive. However, based on my observations, inunction is granted in fewer than 1% of the cases filed.
The standard for injunctive relief requires no adequate remedy at law. Here, the threat of imposition of damages is
sufficient.to resolve nearly all cases. Injunctive relief of the sort sought is highly disfavored in Indiana.
Positive injunctions are rarely granted.
Negative injunctions, ordering a party to stop doing some action, are favored over positive ones. Here there is no action on defendant's part which is complained of.
The suits in environmental court are nominally about injunction but substantively are about the assesment of damages.Not actual damages, but the code equivalent of statutory damages.
This is a question of law.
The indiana constitution also requires that penalties be proportional. This is properly a jury question.
The eighth amendment also imputes a right to a jury trial if the excessive fines clause has been fully incorporated under the 14th amendment. This may be a case of first impression.
12:45 pm 12-07-02


Text | Annotations with reference to excessive fines. In an early case, it held that it had no appellate jurisdiction to revise the sentence of an inferior court, even though the excessiveness of the fines was apparent on the face of the record. 29 In a dissent, Justice Brandeis once contended that the denial of second-class mailing privileges to a newspaper on the basis of its past conduct imposed additional mailing cost, a fine in effect, which, since the costs grew indefinitely each day, was an unusual punishment proscribed by this Amendment. 30 The Court has elected to deal with the issue of fines levied upon indigents, resulting in imprisonment upon inability to pay, in terms of the equal protection clause, 31 thus obviating any necessity to develop the meaning of ''excessive fines'' as applied to the person sentenced. So too, the Court has held the Clause inapplicable to civil jury awards of punitive damages in cases between private parties, ''when the government neither has prosecuted the action nor has any right to receive a share of the damages awarded.'' 32 The Court based this conclusion on a review of the history and purposes of the Excessive Fines Clause. At the time the Eighth Amendment was adopted, the Court noted, ''the word 'fine' was understood to mean a payment to a sovereign as punishment for some offense.'' 33 The Eighth Amendment itself, as were antecedents of the Clause in the Virginia Declaration of Rights and in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, ''clearly was adopted with the particular intent of placing limits on the powers of the new government.'' 34 Therefore, while leaving open the issues of whether the Clause has any applicability to civil penalties or to qui tam actions, the Court determined that ''the Excessive Fines Clause was intended to limit only those fines directly imposed by, and payable to, the government.'' 35 The Court has held, however, that the excessive fines clause can be applied in civil forfeiture cases. Supp.1

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.