Supreme Court to Decide on Six-Person Juries in Criminal Cases

The Supreme Court will contemplate whether states can conduct criminal trials using six-person juries instead of the traditional twelve members. This decision arises from the case of a Florida chiropractor, Hamed Kian, who challenges his conviction on grounds of constitutional rights violations.

Currently, Florida uses six-person juries for all criminal cases that do not involve the death penalty. Other states, including Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, and Utah, also employ six-member juries in certain criminal trials.

Kian stands convicted of practicing with a suspended license after allegations of inappropriate conduct with patients. His conviction came from a jury of six. Kian’s legal team argues that this trial size infringes on the Sixth Amendment, which ensures the right to a trial by an impartial jury. The amendment does not specify jury size, but historically, a jury in 1791 would have been twelve people.

Over a century after the amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that a jury must consist of twelve people. However, the court revised this position in 1970, determining that a twelve-member jury was not essential. Only Justice Thurgood Marshall dissented in that decision.

In recent years, the Supreme Court revisited its interpretation of the Constitution. In 2020, it decided that criminal case juries must reach unanimous verdicts, nullifying a previous ruling from 1972 allowing non-unanimous verdicts in Louisiana and Oregon.

Kian’s attorneys argue that the historical right enshrined in the Constitution implies a twelve-person jury. They stress that changes based on contemporary social research should not apply. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, arguing for upholding Kian’s conviction, maintains that altering the 1970 ruling could risk past convictions in several states relying on this precedent.