Amendment+7

VII Amendment- The right to a trial by jury http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:OynAXqJ2RNoJ:www.akingump.com/docs/publication/85.pdf+cases+for+7th+amendment&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us //"In United States v. Tri-State Hospital Supply Corp.,1the Court of International Trade(CIT) recently affirmed the long-standing right to a jury trial in cases where the federal government seeks civil penalties for violations of the customs laws .In that case, an importer was accused of falsely reporting to the Customs Service the value of duty-free surgical instruments .The United States sued the importer in the CIT, seeking civil penalties for the alleged fraud .In a pretrial ruling, the CIT held that the importer was entitled to a jury trial to determine whether or not it was liable for civil penalties .The CIT also ruled that the court, and not the jury, would assess the amount of any penalties imposed. Because the jury found that Tri-State was not liable, the case never reached the penalty assessment stage. While the court’s ruling properly preserved Tri-State’s constitutional right to jury trial as to liability, the jury also should determine the amount of the penalty imposed in a civil penalty case, consistent with the Seventh Amendment’s mandate that the right to jury trial be preserved in all “suits at common law” and the Supreme Court’s decision in Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. Tri-State was sued pursuant to § 592 of the Tariff Act of 1930.9Section 592 is an example of laws—dating back to the first Congress in 1789—by which Congress has authorized the government to enforce the customs laws by suing for civil penalties. These suits, based on allegedly false or fraudulent statements to customs officials, have been specifically recognized as suits at common law that must be tried to a jury since the Seventh Amendment was enacted in 1789."//
 * United States** **v. Tri-State Hospital Supply Corp**

An importer was blamed for falsely telling Custom Service the price of “duty-free surgical instruments.” The importer was sued. He had a jury however; the jury was not of his peers. So the verdict that the jury came to was the importer wasn’t in a fair trial. The importer got off.

Sorry, cases on the VII Amendment are hard to find, so I couldn’t find another one…:-(