Supreme Court to Decide Whether Criminal Trials Must Use 12-Person Juries

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a constitutional challenge to whether states can conduct criminal trials with six-person juries instead of the traditional twelve. The case centers on Hamed Kian, a 45-year-old Florida chiropractor who was convicted by a six-member jury of practicing with a suspended license. The justices will hear arguments in the fall, with the decision potentially affecting thousands of convictions in six states that currently permit smaller juries.

Kian's legal team argues that the use of a six-person jury violates the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial, contending that the word "jury" in 1791 could only have meant a body of twelve people. They frame the issue as part of a broader constitutional principle regarding the original meaning of the Constitution. Florida, along with Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, and Utah, all permit six-person juries in non-capital criminal cases.

The Supreme Court's own precedent on this question has shifted significantly. In 1970, the Court ruled 7-1 in a Florida case that the number twelve was not constitutionally required, with only Justice Thurgood Marshall dissenting. However, the current Court has shown renewed interest in originalist constitutional interpretation. In 2020, the justices ruled that jury verdicts in criminal cases must be unanimous, overturning a 1972 decision that had allowed non-unanimous convictions in Louisiana and Oregon. Kian's lawyers argue that the same originalist reasoning should apply to jury size.

Florida's Attorney General James Uthmeier has urged the Court to uphold the 1970 decision, warning that overruling it would jeopardize more than fifty years of criminal convictions in the six states that have relied on the six-person jury rule. The case touches on fundamental questions about how the Court interprets constitutional text and the implications of applying originalist methodology to long-established judicial precedents.