The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Kian v. Florida, a case addressing the constitutionality of six-person jury trials used to decide most noncapital cases in Florida and five other states. The court has previously ruled that six-person juries don’t violate a defendant’s right to a jury trial under the U.S. Constitution’s Sixth Amendment. In taking the case, it appears the justices will be looking at whether the Founding Fathers understood that 12 people were required for a jury in criminal cases.
A finding that 12-person juries are required for criminal matters could have far-reaching consequences for individuals have been convicted by smaller juries in Florida. It could also impact convictions in the other five states that allow juries of fewer than 12 individuals in at least some criminal prosecutions: Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, and Utah.
The appeal was filed by Hamed Kian, who was found guilty by a Florida state district court of three counts of practicing chiropractic medicine with a suspended license by a six-person jury. The state court sentenced him to a year and a day in prison, followed by five years of probation.
A state appeals court affirmed the trial court in an unwritten decision. The Florida Supreme Court generally does not consider cases without a written ruling. As a result, Kian appealed the state appeals court ruling directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, which took up the case on June 15. The justices are expected to hear oral arguments in Kian’s case in the fall.
Florida has been using six-person juries to hear non-death-penalty cases since 1877. That same year, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the practice as not infringing on a defendant’s right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment. Nearly 100 years later, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the question in Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970), and found that six-person state court juries are allowed under the Sixth Amendment.
In his appeal, Kian contends Williams was wrongly decided because the Founding Fathers would have understood that a jury trial under common law precedent required 12 jurors. He added that, until Williams was decided, the Supreme Court required 12-person juries. In its opposing brief, Florida argued that the Supreme Court had no reason to reconsider its decision in Williams. Additionally, it claimed that overturning Williams would endanger thousands of convictions made by juries with fewer than 12 members in Florida and five other states.
Appeal Based on Common Law History
Kian’s claims rely heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court’s application of English common law when addressing Sixth Amendment questions prior to its decision in Williams in 1970. He noted that in an 1898 decision, the court relied on English common law in deciding that the Sixth Amendment guaranteed defendants a trial by 12 jurors. It noted that since the time of the Magna Carta, a jury was understood to mean a body of 12 people.
For the next 70 years, the Supreme Court continued to cite 12-person juries as a basic principle of law in criminal cases. However, in 1970, the Supreme Court retreated from this reasoning in Williams, finding that six-person juries in Florida don’t violate the Sixth Amendment. The Williams court recognized that the framers may have expected juries to have 12 members, but “purely historical considerations” should not decide the issue. It then found no evidence that a group of six jurors could not use their common-sense judgment to determine an individual’s guilt or innocence.
Kian noted that, in addition to being at odds with prior decisions, Williams can’t be squared with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. 83 (2020). That decision concluded that a criminal defendant must be found guilty by a unanimous jury. However, it also said the Sixth Amendment’s requirement that trials be conducted before an impartial jury must be interpreted based on what those words would be understood to mean at the time the amendment was adopted.
Florida Sees No Reason to Overturn Williams
In its response to Kian’s Supreme Court petition, Florida argued that a review of Williams was not required under the principles of stare decisis, a doctrine that generally requires courts to follow historical precedent. It added that Kian’s case does not present a conflicting state or federal court decisions, which is a consideration for review under Supreme Court rules.
Florida also took issue with Kian’s claims that Williams conflicted with the Founding Father’s understanding of common law juries. It observed that the Williams ruling included 13 pages addressing common law juries and determined that the meaning of the word “jury” within the Sixth Amendment did not codify the 12-juror requirement.
The case will be one to watch next term. A Supreme Court ruling that the Sixth Amendment requires 12-person juries could affect thousands of convictions, force states to overhaul long-standing jury practices, and reshape how criminal trials are conducted nationwide.
