This applied to very few people, essentially the barony. Your quote seem incorrect - "equals" should be "peers". Villiens and merchants have a different treatment in the text, for example, because they did no have the rights of freemen. Peerage is an essential and assumed component of the text and one with which Americans certainly are no familiar.
39. Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut disseisiatur, aut utlagetur, aut exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super cum ibimus, nec super cum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terre.
my latin is rusty is a rusty as John’s armor.
The trial rights of the criminally accused if not already in place were evolving under the common law independently of the Magna Carta.
As for the other Civil Rights, for the most part frithguild is correct; the Magna Carta only applied to the nobility and not to all. When I referred to this as fight among the Board of Directors, it really was. At the time of the Magna Carta, well over 90% of the land in England was held by a handful of families, all of whom were directly descended from the nobles who accompanied William the Conqueror in 1066. As part of the Norman occupation of England, William’s men took the land in the idea that they were all in it together Even though William reasserted royal authority over the land in the Domesday Book in 1086, it was never popular with the nobility who considered themselves not as subjects. In reality, they considered themselves something the equivalent of stockholders of a major corporation.
I would rather look at the Magna Carta as a shareholders revolt in asserting their rights as shareholders, rather than some great creation of liberty. The shareholders had no intention of extending these “rights” to the commoners or the peasantry.