U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Whether Florida's Six-Person Criminal Juries Are Constitutional

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear one of the most significant Florida criminal procedure cases in decades. At issue is a fundamental question about the Sixth Amendment: Does the Constitution require a 12-person jury in every serious criminal case, or can states continue using six-person juries as Florida has done for more than 50 years? 

For anyone facing criminal charges in Florida, the Court's eventual decision could have far-reaching implications for future jury trials—and potentially for convictions that have already occurred.

Why This Case Matters

Unlike most states, Florida generally uses six-person juries in non-capital criminal cases. Only cases in which the death penalty is sought require a 12-person jury.

That system has existed since the late 1960s after the Florida Legislature reduced the size of criminal juries. In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Florida's law in Williams v. Florida, concluding that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial but does not specifically require that every jury consist of twelve people.

Now, more than half a century later, the Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider that issue.

The Florida Case Before the Supreme Court

The case arises from the conviction of Hamed Kian, a Florida chiropractor who was tried and convicted by a six-person jury after prosecutors alleged that he continued practicing while his professional license was suspended.

Kian argues that his conviction violated the Sixth Amendment because, at the time the Constitution was adopted in 1791, the term "jury" was universally understood to mean a body of twelve citizens. His attorneys contend that the Framers incorporated that historical understanding into the Constitution and that modern courts should return to that original meaning.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments during its upcoming term before issuing a decision.

Why Some Legal Experts Think the Court May Reverse Course

On its face, this might seem like an easy case because the Supreme Court already addressed the issue in Williams v. Florida.

However, today's Supreme Court approaches constitutional interpretation differently than the Court did in 1970.

Over the last several years, the Court has increasingly relied on the original public meaning of constitutional text rather than policy considerations or social science. That approach has already produced major criminal procedure decisions.

One of the best examples is Ramos v. Louisiana (2020), where the Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts in state criminal trials, overturning a nearly 50-year-old precedent that had allowed non-unanimous verdicts in Louisiana and Oregon. The Court emphasized that constitutional rights should be interpreted according to their historical meaning when the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Kian's attorneys argue that the same historical analysis should apply to jury size.

Florida's Position

Florida argues that Williams v. Florida was correctly decided and should remain good law.

The State contends that the Constitution guarantees the essential functions of a jury—fairness, impartiality, community participation, and unanimous verdicts—but does not require any particular number of jurors.

Florida also warns that overturning Williams could have enormous practical consequences. Thousands of convictions obtained over the past five decades relied on six-person juries, and several other states also authorize six-member juries in certain criminal cases. According to Florida's filings, reversing course could create significant uncertainty throughout the criminal justice system.

Could Prior Convictions Be Challenged?

One of the biggest questions surrounding this case is what happens if the Supreme Court rules that twelve-person juries are constitutionally required.

The answer is not necessarily straightforward.

Historically, when the Supreme Court announces a new constitutional rule affecting criminal procedure, the Court must separately determine whether that rule applies retroactively to cases that are already final.

That means even if Kian ultimately prevails, it does not automatically follow that every prior Florida conviction tried before a six-person jury will be overturned.

Instead, courts would likely face difficult questions regarding:

• Whether the ruling applies only to future cases;

• Whether it applies to cases currently on direct appeal;

• Whether defendants with final convictions could seek post-conviction relief; and

• How Florida courts should address pending prosecutions.

Those issues would almost certainly generate additional litigation.

What Could This Mean for Defendants Currently Facing Charges?

If you currently have a criminal case pending in Florida and are expected to go to trial before a six-person jury, this case is worth watching closely.

Depending on when the Supreme Court issues its decision, defense attorneys may consider:

• Preserving objections regarding jury size;

• Monitoring whether trial dates should be continued in appropriate cases;

• Raising constitutional challenges if the law changes; and

• Evaluating how any new decision affects ongoing prosecutions.

The precise strategy will depend on the timing of the Supreme Court's ruling and the procedural posture of each individual case.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court's decision to hear this case is significant because it revisits a constitutional question that has remained largely settled since 1970. Given the Court's modern emphasis on constitutional history and original meaning, there is genuine uncertainty about whether Williams v. Florida will remain good law.

If the Court concludes that the Sixth Amendment requires 12-person juries in state criminal cases, the ruling could reshape criminal jury trials in Florida and several other states for years to come.

For defendants, defense attorneys, prosecutors, and trial judges alike, this is one of the most important criminal procedure cases currently pending before the United States Supreme Court.