August 14, 2026 10:15AM # *Kian v. Florida*: The Right to Be Tried Before a Twelve-Person Jury By [Mike Fox](https://www.cato.org/people/mike-fox) --- SHARE Listen to this article Generated with [ ElevenLabs](https://elevenlabs.io/) AI technology. Loading the [Elevenlabs Text to Speech](https://elevenlabs.io/text-to-speech) AudioNative Player... ![jury](/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs_2x/public/2026-01/jury%20box%201.jpg?itok=1LM8Lf2e) (Getty Images) When Hamed Kian was charged in Florida with five counts of practicing chiropractic medicine with a suspended license—a felony carrying up to five years in prison—he was tried before a six-person jury. Convicted on all counts by this truncated panel, Mr. Kian appealed, arguing that Florida’s six-person jury rule deprived him of his right to a trial by a twelve-person jury as required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Florida appellate court affirmed his conviction without a written opinion, and Mr. Kian asked the US Supreme Court to review his case. In trying felony cases before six-person juries, Florida’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s 1970 decision in *Williams v. Florida* breaks from centuries of tradition. The Framers incorporated the common-law criminal jury into Article III and the Sixth Amendment as a vital structural check against government overreach, overzealous prosecution, and judicial bias. While the Constitution’s text does not explicitly specify a numerical requirement, the Court’s recent originalist jurisprudence—most notably in *Ramos v. Louisiana*—reaffirms that the Sixth Amendment protects the fundamental attributes the criminal jury possessed at common law. Historically, the requirement that a criminal petit jury consist of precisely twelve members remained undisputed in English and American law for hundreds of years until *Williams* improperly abandoned that historical scope. The *Williams* decision replaced historical originalism with a flawed “functionalist” approach, relying on questionable social science to assert that a six-person panel could perform the same democratic functions as a traditional twelve-person jury. Modern empirical research has thoroughly debunked this premise, showing that twelve-person juries deliberate more thoroughly, recall evidence more accurately, better incorporate minority voices, and ensure greater community representation. Moreover, this functionalist line-drawing has eroded the civic role of the jury, which serves as a primary avenue for popular sovereignty and public participation in the justice system. The Supreme Court granted Mr. Kian’s petition, and the Cato Institute filed an [amicus brief](https://www.cato.org/legal-briefs/kian-v-florida) in support of Mr. Kian. In our brief, we ask the justices to overrule *Williams v. Florida* and reverse the decision. Our brief stresses that the structural guarantees of the Bill of Rights cannot be subjected to arbitrary judicial interest-balancing or functionalist reduction. Restoring the common law twelve-person jury requirement is essential to protecting defendants’ constitutional rights, maintaining public confidence in judicial outcomes, and upholding the original meaning of the Sixth Amendment. ##### Related Tags [Constitution and Law](https://www.cato.org/constitution-law), [Constitutional Law](https://www.cato.org/constitutional-law), [Criminal Justice](https://www.cato.org/criminal-justice) [![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).