The Supreme Court has agreed to decide if states can use six-person juries in criminal trials instead of the conventional twelve-person juries. This decision comes with Florida chiropractor Hamed Kian at the center of a constitutional debate after his conviction by a smaller jury.

In Florida, criminal cases that do not involve the death penalty employ six-member juries. Other states following similar practices include Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, and Utah. Kian’s arguments stem from his case where he was convicted of practicing with a suspended license, following allegations of inappropriate conduct with patients.

Kian’s defense posits that the smaller jury contradicts the Sixth Amendment, which ensures “a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” Although the amendment does not specify jury size, Kian’s lawyers argue the historical implication of “jury” meant a twelve-person body as accepted when the amendment was ratified in 1791.

Historically, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of twelve-member juries over a century ago, but amended this stance in 1970, allowing smaller juries, following a case related to Florida. Recently, the court has emphasized original constitutional understanding, as seen in a 2020 ruling demanding unanimous jury verdicts in criminal prosecutions, overturning precedents in Louisiana and Oregon.

The appeal filed by Kian’s attorneys argues for the traditional twelve-person jury, stating constitutional rights should remain uninfluenced by modern interpretations or changes over time. In defense of maintaining the six-person juries, Florida Attorney General, James Uthmeier, suggests the 1970 ruling remains appropriate and changing it could jeopardize numerous convictions upheld by this decision over the past fifty years.