Glossary entry (derived from question below)
English term or phrase:
A jury was waived
English answer:
both parties renounced their right to demand a jury trial
Added to glossary by
Mohammad Ghaffari
Nov 8, 2017 08:06
6 yrs ago
16 viewers *
English term
A jury was waived
English
Law/Patents
Law (general)
A jury was waived, and questions of fact and of law were submitted to the Court.
Can you help me with understanding this phrase?
Can you help me with understanding this phrase?
Responses
+5
1 hr
Selected
both parties renounced their right to demand a jury trial
Since you say this is a divorce decree, I think we must be in Texas. Juries are never involved in divorce proceedings in the United Kingdom, and the same is true in most of the United States. There are only eleven states that allow juries in any aspect of divorce litigation, and only in Texas, where jury trial rights are most broadly available in divorce, can juries decide on custody.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/family_law/2006/12/case_law...
In criminal cases, the right of a defendant to be tried by a jury is guaranteed by the US Constitution, and the defendant may waive (renounce) that right. But this is not a criminal case.
The phrase you have quoted, "A jury was waived, and questions of fact and of law were submitted to the Court", is routinely included in divorce decrees in Texas, but not, to my knowledge, anywhere else. Here is an example:
http://documents.jdsupra.com/98818dcc-95ce-4dec-904e-71c708b...
The point is that according to the Texas Family Code either party can demand a jury trial: either the petitioner (the spouse filing for divorce) or the respondent (the other spouse):
"Sec. 6.703. JURY. In a suit for dissolution of a marriage, either party may demand a jury trial unless the action is a suit to annul an underage marriage under Section 6.102."
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FA/htm/FA.6.htm
So there is a jury if either party demands it (in practice, this only happens rarely). It follows that in order for there not to be a jury, and for the Court to decide matters of fact in a divorce in Texas, both parties have to waive that right: to choose not to demand a jury. That is what this means: both parties, both spouses, stated that they did not want the case to be heard by a jury.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/family_law/2006/12/case_law...
In criminal cases, the right of a defendant to be tried by a jury is guaranteed by the US Constitution, and the defendant may waive (renounce) that right. But this is not a criminal case.
The phrase you have quoted, "A jury was waived, and questions of fact and of law were submitted to the Court", is routinely included in divorce decrees in Texas, but not, to my knowledge, anywhere else. Here is an example:
http://documents.jdsupra.com/98818dcc-95ce-4dec-904e-71c708b...
The point is that according to the Texas Family Code either party can demand a jury trial: either the petitioner (the spouse filing for divorce) or the respondent (the other spouse):
"Sec. 6.703. JURY. In a suit for dissolution of a marriage, either party may demand a jury trial unless the action is a suit to annul an underage marriage under Section 6.102."
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FA/htm/FA.6.htm
So there is a jury if either party demands it (in practice, this only happens rarely). It follows that in order for there not to be a jury, and for the Court to decide matters of fact in a divorce in Texas, both parties have to waive that right: to choose not to demand a jury. That is what this means: both parties, both spouses, stated that they did not want the case to be heard by a jury.
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Charles, thank you for your detailed, helpful answer!"
+1
6 mins
the defendant waived their right to a trial by jury
In some circumstances, you can do this and just let the judge decide.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2017-11-08 09:35:50 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Given the extra context, I think Charles has the right answer. It would help if you could confirm the jurisdiction.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2017-11-08 09:35:50 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Given the extra context, I think Charles has the right answer. It would help if you could confirm the jurisdiction.
Note from asker:
It's a divorce decree, if it helps better. |
Why did I write "better"? Sorry :/ |
Peer comment(s):
neutral |
Daryo
: It is ONE possibility, but not the only one
55 mins
|
Given the extra context, I think you are right.
|
|
neutral |
AllegroTrans
: party in a divorce case would not be called a defendant
2 hrs
|
No, but that wasn't known when I answered.
|
|
agree |
philgoddard
: This was correct before the asker provided the additional context.
6 hrs
|
Something went wrong...