Almost every felony jury in a Hillsborough County courtroom has six people in the box, not twelve. As founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm, I have tried more than 150 jury trials to verdict in more than 25 years in Hillsborough County courtrooms, almost all of them to six jurors. Our attorneys are now raising and preserving the jury-size issue in cases across Tampa Bay while the Supreme Court decides.

How Many Jurors Sit on a Florida Criminal Jury?

Six — unless the charge is a capital one, such as first-degree murder. Section 913.10, Florida Statutes, sets the number:

That means a person facing decades in prison on a robbery, trafficking, or attempted murder charge in Florida gets half the jury a shoplifting defendant would get in most other states — and half the jury any defendant gets in federal court across the street. The verdict must still be unanimous: all six jurors must agree to convict.

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — Tampa trial defense — (813) 727-7159

According to the federal Defender Services Office, Florida is one of only six states that still use fewer than twelve jurors in at least some criminal trials, and Florida uses six-member juries for every noncapital crime. The same June 2026 report counted roughly 5,000 Florida criminal convictions pending on direct appeal, the cases most likely to be affected if the Supreme Court changes the rule. Our attorneys try cases in front of these six-person panels every year, and the arithmetic matters: with six jurors, a defendant needs to reach just one less skeptical mind, but also gets far fewer chances that someone on the panel sees the case the way the defense does.

Which Florida Cases Actually Get a Twelve-Person Jury?

Capital murder cases — and that entitlement holds even when the State chooses not to seek the death penalty. In State v. Griffith, 561 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1990), the Florida Supreme Court held that a prosecutor “cannot, by electing not to seek the death penalty, change the classification of an offense from capital to noncapital” — so a defendant indicted for first-degree murder keeps the statutory right to twelve jurors unless that right is waived, something the defense should never let happen by accident. Our Tampa homicide attorney page explains how we defend first-degree murder cases from indictment through a twelve-person trial.

The “capital felony” label alone, though, is not what controls. Florida defines a capital case for jury purposes as one where death is a possible punishment, so capital sexual battery has long been tried to six jurors. In State v. Hogan, 451 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1984), the Florida Supreme Court approved a six-person jury for sexual battery of a child because death was not an available penalty, and in Phillips v. State, 316 So. 3d 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021), the First District held that a six-person jury was required for the same charge. A 2023 amendment to section 794.011(2)(a), Florida Statutes, now provides a death-or-life sentencing procedure for that offense, but in Oakes v. State, No. 4D2025-2758 (Fla. 4th DCA June 3, 2026), the Fourth District held that a defendant whose offense predated the amendment still was not entitled to twelve jurors. Sit with what that leaves: charges carrying mandatory life, such as trafficking with decades of minimums, attempted murder, and armed robbery, are decided by six people. In our felony practice across the 13th Judicial Circuit, the twelve-person jury is a genuine rarity, which is exactly why the question the Supreme Court agreed to answer reaches nearly every serious case in this state.

Is a Six-Person Jury Legal?

Yes — for now, because of a case that came out of Florida itself. In Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the 12-man panel is not a necessary ingredient of ‘trial by jury,’” and that Florida’s six-person jury did not violate the Sixth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the number twelve was a historical accident rather than a functional necessity, and that what matters is whether the jury is large enough to promote group deliberation, resist outside intimidation, and represent a cross-section of the community.

Eight years later, the Court drew the floor. In Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978), it struck down Georgia’s five-person jury, concluding — based on a body of empirical studies — that “the purpose and functioning of the jury in a criminal trial is seriously impaired, and to a constitutional degree, by a reduction in size to below six members.” So the line has sat at six ever since: five is unconstitutional, six is permitted, and Florida has stayed at the constitutional minimum for over half a century.

Why Does Jury Size Matter?

Because the research the Supreme Court itself relied on in Ballew shows smaller juries deliberate worse. The Ballew Court found that as juries shrink, they are less likely to have members who remember each important piece of evidence, less able to counterbalance individual jurors’ biases, and less likely to represent a true cross-section of the community — and that smaller panels raise the risk of convicting the innocent.

For the defense, the practical stakes are concrete. A Florida verdict must be unanimous, so every juror is a potential holdout against a weak case — and six jurors means half as many people who might catch the flaw in the State’s evidence, half as many life experiences in the room, and far fewer minority voices on any given panel. When our attorneys pick a jury at the Hillsborough County Courthouse, we are choosing six people who will carry the full weight most states spread across twelve. That is exactly the concern now in front of the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court Is Reconsidering: Kian v. Florida

On June 15, 2026, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Kian v. Florida, No. 25-6623, to decide whether a defendant is deprived of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights “to a trial by a 12-person jury when the defendant is charged with a serious felony.” The case comes out of Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal, which affirmed in Kian v. State, 421 So. 3d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025), where Hamed Kian was convicted by a unanimous six-person jury of five felony counts of practicing chiropractic medicine with a suspended license. It asks the Court to reconsider Williams itself.

Challengers have been knocking on this door for years. Florida’s appellate courts have repeatedly rejected six-person jury challenges — the Fourth District did so again in Gonzales v. State, No. 4D2025-2161 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug. 26, 2026), citing its earlier decision in Guzman v. State, 350 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022), and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take the issue up as recently as 2024 in Cunningham v. Florida, 144 S. Ct. 1287 (2024). But those same August 2026 opinions now add three words that tell you everything about where this is heading: “But see Kian.” The Court that would not hear the issue two years ago has now agreed to hear it, and the case is set for oral argument on January 13, 2027.

Here is the road that led there:

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — (813) 727-7159

Ramos matters in this story for a reason: in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020), the Court overruled decades of tolerance for non-unanimous verdicts because history and the jury’s function demanded it. The Kian petition asks the Court to apply that same reasoning to jury size. No one knows how Kian will come out — but the Court does not take cases like this to leave everything as it is.

What Happens to Florida Cases While Kian Is Pending?

Six-person juries remain fully legal, and Florida courts are still bound by Williams until the Supreme Court says otherwise. Florida’s appellate courts made that explicit this summer: in Rogers v. State, No. 6D2025-0883 (Fla. 6th DCA June 29, 2026), the court refused to let a defendant add the jury-size issue after briefing closed, holding that claims based on a cert grant “are speculative and premature.” Critically, it also held that because the defendant left the issue out of his initial brief, he had waived it.

That waiver holding is the practical heart of this entire subject. Rogers also acknowledged the other side of the coin: if the Supreme Court announces a new rule, defendants whose appeals were already final “could seek post-conviction relief to the same extent as any other person” — but whether a new rule would apply retroactively to final cases is a separate question Florida courts would have to resolve. New rules generally apply to cases still pending on direct review; they reach final convictions only through a much narrower retroactivity doctrine. In plain terms: the people best positioned to benefit from a defense win in Kian are the ones whose lawyers put the objection on the record before their case became final.

How Do You Preserve the Jury-Size Issue in Your Case?

By putting it on the record at every stage — even though today’s courts will deny it. When our firm handles a felony case heading to trial while Kian is pending, preservation looks like this:

1. Demand a twelve-person jury in writing before trial. The motion will almost certainly be denied under Williams and § 913.10 — the point is the record.
2. Object when the six-person panel is sworn. A contemporaneous objection anchors the issue at trial, where appellate courts require it to be made.
3. Raise it in the opening brief on appeal. Rogers shows what happens when it appears late: waiver, no matter what the Supreme Court does afterward.
4. Track finality. A case pending on direct review when Kian is decided stands on far stronger ground than one that became final the month before — timing decisions, including whether to seek rehearing, can matter.

None of this costs the defense anything, and all of it is insurance. Our attorneys are building these records now in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco County cases, because the cheapest issue to preserve is the one you preserve before the law changes.

Facing a Felony Trial in Tampa Bay While Kian Is Pending?

If you or a family member has a felony case heading toward trial, this is a moment when the calendar itself is a defense consideration. The jury that decides the case, the objections made before it is sworn, and the timing of the appeal could all look different a year from now. Call The Brancato Law Firm at (813) 727-7159 — our attorneys can evaluate whether the jury-size issue belongs in your case and make sure nothing is waived while the Supreme Court decides.

Frequently Asked Questions: Florida Jury Size and Kian v. Florida

How many jurors are on a jury in Florida?

Six, in every criminal case except capital cases, which get twelve. Fla. Stat. § 913.10. In our Tampa Bay trials, that means six jurors decide felonies carrying decades of prison exposure.

Does a Florida jury verdict have to be unanimous?

Yes — all six jurors must agree before a defendant can be convicted, and a single holdout means no conviction. That unanimity requirement is one reason jury selection is where our attorneys invest so heavily in every trial.

What is Kian v. Florida?

Kian v. Florida, No. 25-6623, is a U.S. Supreme Court case, accepted for review on June 15, 2026, that will decide whether trying a serious felony to a six-person jury violates the Sixth Amendment. It asks the Court to reconsider Williams v. Florida, the 1970 decision that approved Florida’s six-person jury.

Is a six-person jury unconstitutional?

Not under current law — Williams v. Florida upheld six-person juries in 1970, and Florida courts remain bound by it while Kian is pending. Five-person juries, however, have been unconstitutional since Ballew v. Georgia in 1978. We treat the question as live and preserve it in our clients’ cases.

If the Supreme Court strikes down six-person juries, will it apply to old cases?

Nobody knows yet — new constitutional rules generally apply to cases still pending on direct appeal, while reaching already-final convictions requires a separate retroactivity ruling. That uncertainty is exactly why preserving the issue now matters so much; The Brancato Law Firm is doing that in pending cases rather than betting on retroactivity later.

How long has Florida used six-person juries?

Since 1877. As the Sixth District noted in Rogers v. State (2026), Florida has permitted six-person juries in non-capital cases since an 1877 statute, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s nationwide approval of the practice in 1970 came in a Florida case, Williams v. Florida. In our experience, most clients are surprised to learn the tradition is that old — and that it has never before faced the direct reconsideration it faces now in Kian.

Can my lawyer demand a 12-person jury in Florida right now?

Yes — the demand will be denied under current law, but making it in writing and objecting at trial is what preserves the issue if Kian changes the rule. The attorneys of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. build that record in felony cases heading to trial. Call (813) 727-7159 for a free, confidential consultation.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our Top-Rated Tampa Homicide Attorney page.

Related reading: How Trial Preparation Builds a Stronger Defense · How to Decide Whether to Accept a Plea Bargain · How Does a Bond Hearing Work in Tampa? · The Complete Guide to Homicide Charges in Florida

For how this fits into the rest of a case, see our guide to each stage of a Florida criminal case.

The Law May Be About to Change — Your Record Should Be Ready

Kian v. Florida is set for argument on January 13, 2027, and the defendants who benefit will be the ones whose lawyers preserved the issue before the decision came down. If you’re facing a felony charge in Hillsborough, Pinellas, or Pasco County, call the attorneys of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato — at (813) 727-7159. What goes on the record before your trial may decide what relief is available after the Supreme Court rules. Our firm has Spanish-speaking staff, and attorney Jean-Luc Adrien speaks Spanish, Haitian Creole, and French. Read our guide for criminal defense in Spanish and Haitian Creole in Tampa.

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.
620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 727-7159
Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. is a Tampa-based criminal defense practice. We are not affiliated with any other Brancato-named law firms.

On January 7, 2026, an ICE agent shot and killed Rene Good during an immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis. Notably, multiple cameras captured the encounter from multiple angles. The footage is publicly available, and millions have now watched it.

And yet, ask ten people what they saw, and you will likely get two verdicts: justified or unjustified. Not ten thoughtful, nuanced perspectives. Two. And which conclusion a person reaches often depends less on the footage and more on the beliefs they held before they ever pressed play.

Watch the online discourse. Read the comments. People who have viewed identical footage from identical angles reach diametrically opposed conclusions. Some see an agent acting in self-defense. Others see an unjustified killing. Both sides are certain. Moreover, each side believes the video proves their position beyond any doubt.

For purposes of this article, we take no public position on the Good case, on immigration policy, or on any party involved. That is not the point. The point is what this case reveals about jury selection in America today. For a criminal defense attorney who has spent 25 years selecting juries, this case illustrates something that should concern every citizen: the increasing difficulty of empaneling a jury capable of rendering a verdict based solely on the evidence presented in a courtroom.

Why the Good Case Matters for Every Defendant

If you were charged with a crime tomorrow, would you trust twelve strangers to evaluate your case fairly? Or would you worry that their verdict might depend less on the facts and more on how they feel about people who look like you, talk like you, or hold beliefs like yours?

The Good case is extraordinary only in its visibility. However, the same dynamic plays out in courtrooms across Florida every day—in domestic violence cases, where jurors bring their own relationship experiences to the evidence; in self-defense cases, where jurors project their own beliefs about when violence is justified; and in drug cases, where jurors carry assumptions about addiction, criminality, and personal responsibility.

The Filter We All Carry

Because when we watch a confrontation between a citizen and law enforcement, we are not just watching. We are filtering. Every interaction we have had with police, whether positive or negative, shapes what we perceive. Likewise, every news story we have consumed influences our interpretation. In addition, every opinion we have formed about immigration enforcement, about compliance during traffic stops, about when force is reasonable—all of it becomes a lens through which the supposedly “objective” video evidence passes.

This phenomenon is not limited to cases involving law enforcement. It appears in domestic violence cases, where jurors bring their own relationship experiences to the evidence. Similarly, self-defense cases see jurors projecting their own beliefs about when violence is justified. Furthermore, drug cases reveal jurors carrying assumptions about addiction, criminality, and personal responsibility.

How Personal Experience Shapes Perception

Why the Jury May Be Your Only Fair Shot

In Florida, judges are elected. They are supposed to evaluate the facts and apply the law impartially, without regard to public opinion. But judges are human. And an elected judge facing reelection may be more susceptible to political currents than twelve jurors who have no political career to protect. In high-profile or politically charged cases, that susceptibility can matter.

Many citizens have lost faith in the impartiality of elected judges. Whether that perception is fair or not, it exists. And for a defendant facing serious charges, that perception can make the jury feel like the only truly independent body in the courtroom.

Accordingly, this is precisely why selecting the right jury has never been more important. When jurors carry strong preconceptions into the box, the ability to identify those biases during voir dire becomes the difference between conviction and acquittal.

Voir Dire Has Never Mattered More

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused a trial by an impartial jury. But what does “impartial” mean when the case touches on issues that have become tribal identity markers?

Specifically, in high-profile cases involving police, politics, or social controversy, attorneys on both sides face the same dilemma: how do you find twelve people who can genuinely set aside their preconceptions and evaluate the evidence as presented in court, not as interpreted through cable news, social media, or their own experiences?

Frankly, the honest answer is that it may be impossible to find jurors with no opinions. Instead, the goal becomes finding jurors who possess the intellectual honesty to recognize their biases and the integrity to consciously set them aside. That is a different and far more difficult task than simply finding people who have not heard of the case.

The Sleeper Juror Problem

Experienced trial attorneys, particularly those who have tried death penalty cases, know that some prospective jurors lie to get on a jury. These are called “sleeper jurors.” These individuals have an agenda—they have already decided the verdict they want to deliver. Consequently, they will say whatever is necessary during voir dire to get themselves seated.

A sleeper juror will deny having seen media coverage they have watched extensively. Moreover, such jurors will claim to have no opinion on the ultimate issue when they have already made up their mind. Additionally, they present themselves as open-minded and fair when they are neither. Their goal is to survive voir dire, get seated, and then accomplish their predetermined verdict.

The Fair Jurors Who Fight to Leave

Meanwhile, a perverse opposite dynamic occurs. Many prospective jurors who would be genuinely fair, who have no agenda, and who would evaluate the evidence objectively, lie to get off the jury. Perhaps they cannot afford to miss work. Others have childcare obligations or no paid leave. For these individuals, jury service would create a genuine hardship.

So these fair-minded people manufacture disqualifying biases. As a result, they claim prejudices they do not hold and exaggerate opinions they barely have. Ultimately, they will do anything to get excused and return to the lives they cannot afford to put on hold.

As a result, this creates an environment where the jury pool is systematically skewed. The people most motivated to serve are often the least impartial. Conversely, the people most likely to be fair are often the most motivated to leave. Navigating this reality requires an attorney who has seen it play out hundreds of times.

Why Experience Matters in Jury Selection

Essentially, effective jury selection is part science and part intuition, developed over years of watching how people respond to questions, how they interact with other prospective jurors, and what their body language reveals that their words do not.

Experienced criminal defense attorneys actively read subtle cues. They spot the prospective juror crossing their arms defensively when discussing law enforcement, despite saying the right words. They hear the tone harden when self-proclaimed open-minded jurors discuss certain neighborhoods. Experienced attorneys see the eyes telling a different story, even as a head nods along.

What to Ask Your Attorney

Ultimately, if you or a loved one faces serious criminal charges, the attorney’s experience with jury selection should be near the top of your questions. Consider asking:

Frequently Asked Questions About Jury Selection

The Stakes Have Never Been Higher

Abraham Lincoln once observed that “the greatest service of citizenship is jury duty.” He understood that the jury is the ultimate check on government power. Twelve citizens, drawn from the community, hold the power to stand between an individual and the full force of prosecution. No judge, no politician, no official can override their unanimous verdict of not guilty.

But we live in an era where Americans increasingly sort themselves by belief, consume media that reinforces their existing views, and approach controversial topics with certainty rather than curiosity. The Rene Good case is simply the most visible recent example of a dynamic that plays out in courtrooms every day.

If you face serious criminal charges, your freedom may depend on your attorney’s ability to identify twelve people who can genuinely listen, genuinely deliberate, and genuinely base their verdict on the evidence rather than on the beliefs they carried into the courtroom.

Indeed, Lincoln was right. Jury duty remains the greatest service of citizenship. But for those whose lives hang in the balance, everything depends on who fills those twelve seats.

620 E Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602

Former Chief Operations Officer, Hillsborough County Public Defender’s Office

Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

Related Pages

• Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney
• Social Media in Criminal Cases
• Do I need a Criminal Defense Lawyer if I am Innocent?