One of the questions that quickly comes up for someone who is being sued by a debt collector is whether they have the right to a jury trial. And if so, if he should take it. I don’t think there is an entirely clear answer, although I always leaned in favor of juries.
Right to trial by jury
First of all, do you have the right to a jury trial? Almost certainly yes. The sixth amendment to the United States Constitution provides that in cases involving “damages” the parties have the right to a jury trial. When they sue you for a breach of promise to pay debt (which is what most credit card lawsuits are about), they are clearly suing you for damages. You may have heard of “injunctions.” Those are court orders to do or not do something. Generally speaking, injunctions are the opposite of damages. Lawsuits for money are for damages.
The right to a jury trial may be waived. That is, you can agree not to affirm it. In general, credit cards have not sought or required a jury trial waiver in their contracts, and it is also possible that the right to a jury trial, being so important to our legal system, requires more than a formal contract. simple as it is used by most credit cards. And then there is the question of whether a debt collector would have the right to enforce the waiver. These are all real problems if credit cards ever try to get people to waive their right to a jury trial. I never found it while practicing.
With jury or without jury
So would you want a jury trial? If you want one, you should check your Local Rules to see how to “require” it.
Why you might want a jury
There are several reasons why I am inclined to want a jury trial. First of all, I trust juries more than judges. Although they may be more subject to emotion than judges, I think there is truth to the old saying that six pairs of eyes are better than one. It’s hard to fool juries, and when it comes to a large, faceless corporation squeezing the blood out of a citizen, juries are often unsympathetic. They have the right to, and at some point do, simply disregard the law and rule in their favor. Strangely, you can’t tell them that they have this right… but they do.
I like the added formality of the jury trial for a couple of reasons. For one thing, it makes it more expensive and difficult for the collector to pursue the case. They have to prepare longer, submit more documents, and jump through more hoops. In addition, the trial is longer and more difficult. Of course, for someone who is not used to trials, all of these things could be reasons against wanting a jury trial. But if you have the courage, and if you realize that imposing expense and risk on the other party is usually to your advantage, and if you’re willing to take the time and trouble to learn a little about the process, you probably can. like this, or better, in front of a jury.
Why you might want a judge
The reason you might want to try your case in front of a judge is basically stage fright. A judge is a person who has seen it all and will not look at you strangely. On the other hand, the fact that he or she has seen it all right could mean that he or she is less sympathetic to your situation. But sometimes judges are understanding. However, in general, you should know that your judge will be familiar with the other side’s attorney but not with you, while the jury will also not be familiar with the two of you. If, like me, you find familiarity an advantage, that might be a reason to go to the jury. The process is definitely simpler with just one judge, and the rules of evidence are more loosely applied. This might help you as a newbie, but it will hurt you by allowing more debt collector materials to come forward.
conclusion
So, in conclusion, this is a trial. If you’re brave and energetic, I’d say you’re better off with a jury. If you’re scared of crowds… you might be better off with just one judge. And if the debt clearly does not apply to you, is a case of mistaken identity, or a clear case of statute of limitations, then a judge might dismiss the case faster than a jury and might be angry enough to punish the debt collector. . by ruling in your favor on your Fair Debt Collection Practices Act counterclaims for reasons a jury would not. Though I’d still favor a jury in that situation anyway. The judge will be mad that he wasted his time, but the jury will want to kill him for trying to rob you.