Judicial Nullification of the Right to Trial by Jury by “Evolving” Standards of Appellate Review

7 AYRES.EIC 4/28/2008 11:19:59 AM JUDICIAL NULLIFICATION OF THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY BY “EVOLVING” STANDARDS OF APPELLATE REVIEW R. Jack Ayres, Jr.* I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................340 II. THE RELATIONSHIP OF STANDARDS OF REVIEW TO THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY .......................................................340 A. The Fundamental Nature of the Right to Trial by Jury...340 B. The Functions of Standards and Scope of Review. .........342 III. THE TEXAS STANDARDS OF REVIEW.......................................344 A. Establishment of the Traditional Standards of Review in Texas. ..........................................................................344 1. Cases prior to the constitutional amendments of 1891............................................................................345 2. The 1891 amendments to the Texas Constitution and 100 years of case law. .........................................348 B. Historical Development of Standard of Review for Sufficiency in Particular Cases.......................................357 1. The traditional standard for legal sufficiency review.........................................................................357 2. The traditional standard for factual sufficiency review.........................................................................360 3. Traditional application of legal sufficiency review in gross negligence cases. ..........................................360 4. Traditional application of legal sufficiency review in bad faith cases........................................................363 5. History of the standard of review in cases requiring clear and convincing evidence...................................366 *Board Certified, Texas Board of Legal Specialization: Civil Trial Law, Personal Injury Trial Law, Civil Appellate Law. Board Certified, National Board of Trial Advocacy: Civil Trial Advocacy. Former Adjunct Professor of Law, Baylor University School of Law, Waco, Texas. 7 AYRES.EIC 4/28/2008 11:19:59 AM 338 BAYLOR LAW REVIEW [Vol. 60:2 IV. THE HEIGHTENED STANDARD OF REVIEW ARRIVES IN TEXAS.....................................................................................374 A. Creation of a New Standard............................................374 1. In re C.H. ...................................................................374 2. In re J.F.C..................................................................376 3. In re L.M.I..................................................................378 B. Development and Application of the Heightened Standard. .........................................................................379 1. Defamation Cases: Bentley v. Bunton.......................379 2. Punitive Damages: Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Garza ...............................................................390 3. The Reweighing of Evidence As a “Scope of Review”: City of Keller v. Wilson.............................392 4. A New De Facto Standard for Experts: Volkswagen v. Ramirez. .............................................403 5. The Beat Goes On in Malicious Prosecution: Kroger Texas, Ltd. v. Suberu. ...................................408 6. “Constitutional” Review of Exemplary Damages: Tony Gullo Motors v. Chapa. ....................................412 V. A CRITIQUE OF THE NEW TEXAS STANDARD ..........................418 A. The Heightened Standard is Unnecessary ......................418 B. The Constitutional Prohibition........................................420 C. Reversal of the Appellate Burden....................................421 D. The Gross Departure from Federal Precedent ...............423 1. The Federal Standard for Judgment as a Matter of Law ............................................................................423 2. Federal Precedent regarding Jackson v. Virginia ......423 E. A Standardless Standard .................................................427 VI. OTHER LEGAL COMMENTARY ................................................432 VII. THE PRESENT STATE AND FUTURE OF LEGAL AND FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW IN TEXAS .............................................439 A. Legal Sufficiency .............................................................439 B. Factual Sufficiency..........................................................442 C. Scope of Review...............................................................442 D. Proposed Solutions..........................................................443 VIII. FEDERAL STANDARDS OF REVIEW ..........................................444 A. The Federal Standards of Review Generally ..................444 7 AYRES.EIC 4/28/2008 11:19:59 AM 2008] JUDICIAL NULLIFICATION OF TRIAL BY JURY 339 1. The Federal Rules......................................................444 2. The Value of the Standards........................................444 3. The Danger of Hollow or Unfollowed Standards......444 B. The Development of Federal Standards of Review of Jury Verdicts for Factual Sufficiency..............................445 C. The Fifth Circuit’s Articulation of Its Own Standard of Review for Sufficiency for Evidence: Boeing Co. v. Shipman...........................................................................447 D. The Search for a Workable Standard Continues in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc......................................449 E. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.................453 F. What Actually Happens Now in the Fifth Circuit ...........454 G. The Fifth Circuit and Experts..........................................457 H. The Fifth Circuit following Reeves .................................462 I. Proper Application of the Standard ................................463 J. The Fifth Circuit and Damages.......................................464 1. The Constitutional Standard.......................................464 2. Review of Actual Damages for Excessiveness..........465 3. Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc....................467 4. The Fifth Circuit and the “Maximum Recovery Rule.” .........................................................................471 5. Federal Review of Punitive Damages........................473 6. Another Recent Discussion by the U.S. Supreme Court ..........................................................................476 IX. THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEMONS .............................................477 A. Recharacterizing Questions of Fact as Questions of Law..................................................................................478 B. Interfering with a Jury’s Ability to Draw Inference from the Evidence............................................................480 C. Transposing Constitutional Standards............................482 D. “Shoehorning” Legal Principles into Facts that Do Not Fit .............................................................................483 X. CONCLUSION...........................................................................484 A. The Liberty Spirit ............................................................484 B. The Disease .....................................................................485 C. The Pathogenesis.............................................................486 D. The Cure..........................................................................488 7 AYRES.EIC 4/28/2008 11:19:59 AM 340 BAYLOR LAW REVIEW [Vol. 60:2 I. INTRODUCTION This Article will explore the standards and scope of appellate review as employed by federal and Texas courts and their relationship to the right to trial by jury under the Texas Constitution and under the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It will identify and discuss trends in both standards of review and scope of review employed by federal and Texas appellate courts which effectively nullify the right to trial by jury. The Article will conclude with a call for judicial self-restraint and for a more objective means to protect the right to trial by jury. II. THE RELATIONSHIP OF STANDARDS OF REVIEW TO THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY A. The Fundamental Nature of the Right to Trial by Jury. The transcendent importance of the right to trial by jury was well described by Professor Gerald Powell: The right to a jury trial is a fundamental right granted to all United States citizens by the Seventh Amendment of the United States constitution and to all Texas citizens by Article 1, Section 15 and Article 5, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution. The right to trial by jury was so sacred to our founding fathers that it almost prevented ratification of America’s Constitution. Only after a promise to add a bill of rights, which included a ‘right to trial by jury,’ was the Constitution ratified. The fundamental right to trial by jury is even more precious in Texas. In the Texas Declaration of Independence, Grievance Three complains that the Mexican Government “has failed and refused to secure, on a firm basis, the right of trial by jury that palladium of civil liberty, and the only safe guarantee for the life, liberty, and property of a citizen.” To safeguard against this intrusion into a citizen’s individual rights, the Texas Constitution references the right to trial by jury in six sections, whereas the Federal Constitution makes reference to this right only 7 AYRES.EIC 4/28/2008 11:19:59 AM 2008] JUDICIAL NULLIFICATION OF TRIAL BY JURY 341 one time. The right to a jury trial is of vital interest to the public.1 The importance of the right to a trial by jury in civil cases was also eloquently

Load more