Key facts
- The Supreme Court will decide if states can use six-person juries in criminal cases.
- The case involves Hamed Kian, convicted by a six-person jury in Florida.
- Kian argues a six-person jury violates the Sixth Amendment.
- Florida and five other states use six-person juries for non-capital criminal cases.
- The court previously allowed smaller juries in 1970 but has since emphasized original constitutional intent.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could determine whether states are constitutionally permitted to use juries of only six people in criminal trials that do not involve the death penalty.
The case centers on Hamed Kian, a Florida chiropractor convicted of practicing with a suspended license. Kian's legal team argues that his conviction by a six-person jury violates the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to an impartial jury.
Florida employs six-person juries for all criminal cases except those where the death penalty is a possibility. Five other states—Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, and Utah—also utilize smaller juries for certain criminal proceedings.
Kian's lawyers contend that the historical understanding of the Sixth Amendment implies a jury of 12, citing the amendment's adoption in 1791. They argue that the number 12 was considered standard at the time the Constitution was ratified and that subsequent judicial interpretations should not alter this fundamental right.
Conversely, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier urged the court to uphold the current practice. He stated that overturning the 1970 ruling, which established that a 12-person jury is not sacrosanct, would jeopardize thousands of criminal convictions in Florida and other states that have relied on the precedent for over five decades.
This case comes as the Supreme Court has recently shown a renewed focus on the original meaning of constitutional provisions, as seen in its 2020 ruling requiring jury unanimity in criminal cases.