The Constitutional Authority of Oregon Juries: Drawing the Line on Legislative Encroachment
MetadataShow full item record
This Article questions the Oregon Supreme Court’s analysis and, ultimately, its holding in Horton. Specifically, the Article reviews the history of the civil jury trial, leading up to its inclusion in the Oregon Constitution. It compares that history to the historical conclusions emphasized by the Horton court to justify its decision. The comparison suggests that the court’s reasoning in Horton is flawed by the omission of important historical context and events. The Article concludes that Horton was wrongly decided and that the court should revisit the matter at the earliest opportunity to restore the protections afforded to Oregon’s citizens by the civil jury.