Supreme Court to Decide Juries Size in Criminal Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review whether states can conduct criminal trials with juries comprising only six members instead of the typical twelve. This decision arises from the case of Hamed Kian, a Florida chiropractor convicted of practicing with a suspended license, who argues that his constitutional rights have been violated by the smaller jury size.

Florida employs six-person juries for criminal cases excluding those involving the death penalty. Other states, such as Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, and Utah, also use six-member juries for certain criminal trials. Kian’s license was suspended following complaints from three female patients of inappropriate conduct, leading prosecutors to pursue charges as he continued treating patients post-suspension.

Kian’s defense contends that the smaller jury infringes on the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees “a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state.” While the amendment does not specify jury size, Kian’s counsel asserts historically the term ‘jury’ denoted twelve people at the amendment’s inception in 1791. Historical context shows that the Supreme Court once required twelve-member juries but altered its stance in 1970, reasoning that twelve was not an obligatory number.

Recently, the court emphasized original constitutional interpretation, affirming unanimous verdicts in criminal cases in 2020, overturning a prior allowance for non-unanimous decisions. Kian’s appeal references this perspective, arguing the historical right to a twelve-member jury aligns with constitutional intentions without flexibility for modern social science interpretations.

Florida’s Attorney General, James Uthmeier, advocates maintaining Kian’s conviction, asserting the accuracy of the 1970 decision. He warns that overturning it would jeopardize numerous convictions in Florida and other states that rely on this precedent.