The longstanding debate over jury sizes in criminal trials has reached the highest court in the United States. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of six-person juries, a practice currently implemented in several states. This pivotal case centers around Hamed Kian, a Florida chiropractor who argues that his conviction by a six-member jury infringes upon his constitutional rights.
The court will convene in the fall to deliberate on whether the use of smaller juries is permissible under the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees “a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state.” Although the amendment does not specify jury size, Kian’s defense contends that historically, a jury was understood to consist of 12 individuals when the amendment was crafted in 1791.
Florida, alongside Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, and Utah, allows six-person juries for non-capital criminal cases. Kian, 45, was convicted by such a jury for practicing with a suspended license, following allegations of inappropriate conduct from former patients. Prosecutors pursued charges after evidence emerged that he continued to operate his practice post-suspension.
The concept of a 12-member jury was upheld by the Supreme Court over a century after the Sixth Amendment’s inception. However, a pivotal 1970 ruling from the same court stated that a jury of 12 was not a necessity, a decision now under scrutiny. Justice Thurgood Marshall notably dissented in that decision. More recently, the court has revisited the originalist interpretation of the Constitution, notably requiring unanimous jury verdicts in a 2020 decision, which overturned a precedent permitting non-unanimous convictions.
In their appeal, Kian’s attorneys argue, “The same reasoning applies to the historical right to a jury of twelve. When the People enshrined the jury trial right in the Constitution, they did not attach a rider that future judges could adapt it based on latter-day social science views.”
Florida’s Attorney General, James Uthmeier, counters that the 1970 ruling should stand, warning that overturning it could jeopardize numerous convictions across states that have relied on this rule for decades. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could have far-reaching implications for the future of jury trials in America.
