Supreme Court to Reconsider Jury Size Requirement

The Supreme Court will consider whether the Sixth Amendment mandates a 12-person jury for serious criminal charges. The upcoming case, *Kian v. Florida*, asks whether Florida can convict a person of a serious crime with a jury of six.

In 1970, *Williams v. Florida* determined that a 12-person jury, though historical, was not constitutionally required. The court stated that six jurors could adequately perform a jury's functions, calling the number 12 a "historical accident." Justice Thurgood Marshall dissented at the time, arguing the court disregarded both historical meaning and precedent. Justice Neil Gorsuch has since echoed Marshall's stance in various dissents, criticizing the court's refusal to re-examine the issue.

Justice Gorsuch, in dissents from denials to reconsider *Williams*, maintained the 1970 decision was incorrect and harmed the criminal justice system. In *Khorrami v. Arizona*, Gorsuch cited historical sources and legal precedents supporting a 12-person rule, stating, "*Williams* was wrong the day it was decided." Two years later, in *Cunningham v. Florida*, Gorsuch again argued that Florida's use of six-person juries resulted from the court's earlier decision. He contended *Williams* replaced constitutional meaning with flawed social science.

The path to six-person juries began with *Duncan v. Louisiana* in 1968, which extended the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial to states via the 14th Amendment. This decision prompted questions about which aspects of federal juries states must adopt. Florida, which had reduced jury sizes in most cases after the Civil War and had a history of excluding Black jurors, became an early test case.

Johnny Williams challenged his robbery conviction, asserting the Sixth Amendment guaranteed a 12-person jury. A majority of the Supreme Court disagreed, with Justice Byron White writing that a "12-man panel" was not a "necessary ingredient" but a "historical accident." White argued that the purposes of a jury, such as incorporating community judgment and safeguarding against injustice, could be achieved with fewer than 12 members. The court did not find empirical evidence to suggest that reducing the jury size from 12 to six would significantly affect fact-finding accuracy or the likelihood of a hung jury. After *Williams*, most states kept 12-person juries, but were not constitutionally required to do so.

Marshall, the first Black Supreme Court Justice, argued *Brown v. Board of Education* and spent years defending Black defendants in the Jim Crow South. He had direct experience with legal proceedings where justice was often absent. Despite this, his dissent in *Williams* focused on constitutional history and case law, citing an "unbroken line of precedent going back over 70 years" that the majority, in his view, disregarded.

Half a century later, in *Ramos v. Louisiana*, the court revisited the Sixth Amendment jury guarantee, ruling that unanimity was constitutionally required for state felony convictions. Justice Gorsuch, writing for a fractured majority, criticized the earlier *Apodaca v. Oregon* decision, which had permitted non-unanimous verdicts. Gorsuch argued that constitutional guarantees are not subjects for functional balancing.

Florida resident Hamed Kian was convicted by a six-person jury for practicing chiropractic medicine without a license and received a sentence including prison time and probation. The Florida appellate court upheld his conviction based on *Williams*. The Supreme Court has now agreed to hear Kian's case.

Kian's petition argues that the term "trial by jury" at the founding included 12 members, a meaning the court recognized before *Williams*. He also contends that research since *Williams* indicates larger juries deliberate longer, recall evidence more accurately, include more viewpoints, and rely less on irrelevant information. Kian further suggests that jury size reductions had racist motivations.

Florida asserts that *Williams* has been precedent for 56 years, creating substantial reliance interests. Florida and five other states use smaller juries in some criminal trials. Florida indicates approximately 5,000 convictions from six-member juries are currently under direct appeal in its courts. The state disputes Kian's interpretations of history and empirical literature, arguing the Sixth Amendment preserves the jury's essential function rather than every historical detail. Florida also states that there are race-neutral reasons for smaller juries and that evidence does not establish their constitutional deficiency.

The court's recent approach to jury trial rights has been mixed. While *Ramos* reinstated unanimity, Justices Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and Elena Kagan dissented, raising concerns about overturning established precedent. Similar concerns regarding state practice and numerous judgments will likely arise in *Kian*.