The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Kian v. Florida, a case that could end the practice of trying serious felony cases with six-person juries in Florida and five other states. The petitioner, Hamed Kian, a Jupiter, Florida chiropractor, was convicted by a six-person jury on five counts of practicing chiropractic medicine with a suspended license and sentenced to more than a year in prison. His lawyers argue that the Sixth and 14th Amendments guarantee a 12-person jury for serious criminal charges, leaning on the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana, which held that the jury-trial right must be understood the way it was at the time the Constitution was written, when “jury” meant 12 people, not fewer.
On August 13, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and NAACP filed an amicus brief in the case laying out the law’s origin: Florida’s six-person jury statute was enacted by former Confederates in the state legislature during the post-Reconstruction era, specifically to make it easier to seat all-white juries once Black citizens gained the right to serve. Cutting jury size from 12 to six meaningfully reduced the odds that a Black juror would be included at all, which is exactly the outcome its drafters were after.
A Law Built for a Different Purpose Than the One It Serves Today
Florida has defended six-person juries for decades on cost and efficiency grounds, smaller juries are cheaper to seat and faster to deliberate. Those are real, practical considerations for a court system managing a heavy caseload. But they don’t erase the law’s origin, and the LDF’s brief argues that origin matters directly to the constitutional question: a rule adopted specifically to dilute Black jurors’ influence on verdicts is difficult to defend as a neutral administrative choice, regardless of how long it’s been in place.
What’s Actually at Stake
Beyond Florida, a ruling against the state could unsettle jury laws in Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, Utah, and Arizona, which also allow six-person juries in non-capital cases. Research on jury behavior consistently shows that smaller juries deliberate for less time, recall fewer details of trial evidence, and are more vulnerable to a single dominant voice steering the outcome, differences that matter regardless of the law’s history. Arguments are expected this fall.
🔥 The Six-Person Jury Rule, Explained:
What do you think? Should the Supreme Court require all states to use 12-person juries for serious felony cases, or is a six-person jury a reasonable modern efficiency regardless of its history? Let us know your thoughts in the comments on BeezLoop.com!
Related from BeezLoop: The Supreme Court Let the Voter Purge Database Run, Byron Donalds Won His Primary on Trump's Endorsement and Salazar Helped Fund ICE. Now That It's in Miami, She Says It Went Too Far.
