The Supreme Court has agreed to decide if states can employ six-person juries in criminal trials instead of the standard twelve-person juries. This decision is pivotal in a constitutional debate, led by the case of a Florida chiropractor named Hamed Kian.
Background on Hamed Kian’s Case
Kian was convicted of practicing with a suspended license. His license was suspended after three patients accused him of inappropriate behavior, as documented in court records. Despite the suspension, Kian supposedly continued treating patients at his Jupiter office. This led to his conviction by a six-person jury. Kian contends this jury size violates his constitutional rights.
States Using Six-Person Juries
Florida employs six-person juries for all criminal cases not involving the death penalty. Other states, including Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, and Utah, sometimes use smaller juries as well.
Constitutional Arguments
Kian’s lawyers argue the Sixth Amendment guarantees a trial by an impartial jury of the state, implying a twelve-person jury as per historical precedent. Initially, the Supreme Court declared juries must have twelve members about a century after the amendment was adopted. However, this view shifted in 1970 when the Court decided the number twelve was not essential, following a case from Florida.
The argument is part of broader discussions related to the Constitution’s original understanding. For instance, in 2020, the Court emphasized that juries must be unanimous, affecting prior decisions permitting non-unanimous verdicts in Louisiana and Oregon.
Florida’s Argument to Uphold Conviction
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier argues the 1970 ruling was valid and overturning it could jeopardize numerous convictions in six states that have adhered to its precedent for over five decades.