The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether states can use juries made up of only six people in criminal cases, instead of the usual 12. The case puts a Florida chiropractor convicted of practicing with a suspended license in an unlikely leading role in a constitutional clash.
The justices will hear arguments in the fall in the case of Hamed Kian, who argues that a six-person jury violates his constitutional rights.
Florida uses six-person juries for all criminal cases that don’t involve the death penalty. Five other states, Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts and Utah, also conduct some criminal trials with six-member juries.
The 45-year-old Kian’s license was suspended after three women who were his patients complained he either kissed or touched them inappropriately, according to court records.
Prosecutors sought an indictment after amassing evidence that Kian, who had an office in Jupiter, continued to see patients even after the suspension. He was convicted by a six-person jury.
Kian’s lawyers argue that the smaller jury violates the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees “a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state.”
The amendment does not explicitly set the size of the jury, but Kian’s lawyers contend that the word jury could only have meant a body of 12 people at the time the amendment was adopted in 1791. Just over 100 years later, the Supreme Court ruled that juries had to have 12 people.
Seems like a pretty cut and dry case. The movie is called 12 Angry Men, not 6. Would be a far shorter film.
So by your argument, no women are allowed on juries because the movie is called 12 Angry Men?
Yes. Furthermore, being in a chipper mood is grounds for immediate expulsion at any time.
bring your contempt, or the court will bring theirs
It’s becoming clear that the laws in this country are being set by criminals like this through manipulation of the courts and laws in this country, and lawyers concocting unethical arguments that they know are wrong, but use technicalities to eschew any guilt. The whole thing stinks, if the courts worked how they told us they worked we would be in a totally different situation, but the courts are a fucking circus full of clowns
This is a huge deal IMO. Where’s the floor on this kind of thing? 3? 2? It’s the states job to convince the jury, unanimously, that someone is guilty. Clearly it’s to their advantage to have as few people as possible.
Edit: key point about unanimous decisions
look, cops only arrest criminals
why waste tax dollars on trials
If this argument succeeds, I would love to see the same logic applied to the second amendment (specifically the word “arms”) just for shits and giggles.
But don’t get me wrong, I know that logical consistency doesn’t apply to the second amendment. It would just be fun to see someone try.
I would love to see the same logic applied to the second amendment (specifically the word “arms”) just for shits and giggles.
Illegal to own just one gun. (That would be an ‘arm’, not ‘arms’.) You must own zero or at least two. First time gun buyers must buy them in pairs, although it’s advised to buy at least three, just in case something happens to one of them and would otherwise leave you with an illegal number of guns.
It’s the right to bear arms. So it’s illegal to carry just one gun at a time.
