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

The Supreme Court will determine if states can use juries consisting of only six members instead of twelve in criminal cases. This case involves a Florida chiropractor, Hamed Kian, whose trial is central to this constitutional matter. The court will hear arguments regarding Kian’s case in the fall. Kian contends that a six-member jury infringes on his constitutional rights.

Florida employs six-person juries for all non-death penalty criminal cases. Other states with similar practices include Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, and Utah. Kian, 45, was convicted of practicing with a suspended license after being accused of inappropriate conduct by three female patients. Despite his license suspension, he allegedly continued to consult patients, resulting in his conviction by a six-member jury.

Kian’s defense claims the smaller jury size contravenes the Sixth Amendment, which ensures “a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state.” Although the amendment doesn’t specify the jury’s size, Kian’s lawyers argue that in 1791, when the amendment was created, a jury would have been understood as comprising twelve individuals. Historically, in the late 19th century, the Supreme Court mandated twelve-person juries. However, in 1970, the court ruled that the number was not obligatory, a case that also originated from Florida, with Justice Thurgood Marshall as the sole dissenting opinion.

Recent court decisions have emphasized the original interpretation of the Constitution. In 2020, the court decreed that juries must be unanimous in criminal cases, overturning a 1972 decision that allowed non-unanimous verdicts in Louisiana and Oregon. Kian’s legal team argues, “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 defends the 1970 ruling, stating that overturning it could jeopardize numerous convictions over the past five decades in Florida and five other states depending on the six-person jury model.