A Florida appeals court said on November 6 that it will keep upholding six-person jury verdicts until the U.S. Supreme Court rules otherwise, and the justices have set the case that could do so for January 13, 2027.
The appeal came from Julio Velazquez, convicted of two noncapital felonies in Lee County by a jury of six. His lawyers argued that the Sixth Amendment requires twelve. A unanimous panel of the Sixth District Court of Appeal disagreed, in an opinion by Judge Pratt joined by Judges Nardella and Kamoutsas, the Tampa Free Press reported. The court said the Supreme Court's 1970 decision in Williams v. Florida still binds it, and that the justices' agreement to reconsider Williams "decides nothing and overrules nothing." Velazquez's trial lawyers had never objected to the jury's size, so he also had to show fundamental error. The panel found no error at all.
"We are not permitted to disregard the binding precedent of Williams," the opinion says.
The case in Washington
The case the Florida court was waiting on is Kian v. Florida, No. 25-6623. Hamed Kian, a chiropractor in Jupiter, was convicted on five counts by a six-person jury after, Florida says, he kept practicing while his license was under an emergency suspension. Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed on October 16, 2025, without a written opinion. The question the justices agreed to decide is whether they should overrule Williams and hold that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require twelve jurors.
Two entries on the Supreme Court's docket moved the case this month. On November 2 the court set argument for Wednesday, January 13. On November 9 it granted the Solicitor General's request to argue as a friend of the court on Florida's side. Under the government's motion, Kian's lawyer gets 30 minutes, Florida 20 and the United States 10, with Florida ceding time to the federal government. The federal interest, the motion explains, is a federal rule that lets 11 jurors return a verdict when one is excused for good cause during deliberations.
Our count of the docket
We went through every entry on the Kian docket. These are the figures, with their inputs.
The petition was filed on January 9, 2026, and granted on June 15, a span of 157 days. In between, Florida first waived its right to respond, the court asked for a response anyway, Florida took two extensions, and the petition was distributed for five different conferences (February 20, May 21, May 28, June 4 and June 11) before the grant.
Kian's merits brief was filed on August 6. In the seven days that followed, the window the court's rules give to friends of the court supporting the petitioner or neither side, 16 amicus briefs arrived. They include filings from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Innocence Project, the Cato Institute, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Professor Steven Calabresi and a group of 38 current and former prosecutors.
Florida's brief was filed on September 28. In the week after it, 11 more amicus briefs arrived, the window for briefs backing the respondent. They include the United States, the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, the Florida Association of Court Clerks, a group of states led by Arizona, another led by Montana, and the Louisiana District Attorneys Association.
That is 27 friend-of-the-court briefs in all, by our count, before Kian's reply on October 28.
What is at stake, in the parties' own numbers
Florida has used six-person juries for noncapital felonies since an 1877 statute, a span of 149 years. The federal government's amicus brief cites that law, chapter 3010 of the 1877 Florida Laws. Today only capital cases in Florida get twelve jurors, under section 913.10 of the state's statutes. Williams has now stood for 56 years.
The government's brief says seven states use fewer than twelve jurors in felony cases, and at least 20 more use smaller juries for misdemeanors serious enough to carry the Sixth Amendment jury right. Florida's merits brief names the other six felony states as Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts and Utah. It says Florida has "roughly 5,200 cases pending on direct appeal, many of which could be affected by a ruling for Petitioner." Velazquez's case was one of them until November 6.
That figure matters because of how new constitutional rules reach old cases. A ruling for Kian would apply to convictions still on direct appeal, which is why Florida's brief argues that overruling Williams "would imperil many thousands of criminal convictions nationwide." Kian's merits brief leans on Ramos v. Louisiana, the 2020 decision requiring unanimous verdicts in state felony trials. It asks the court to discard Williams "just as Ramos overturned a similar decision from the Williams era," and it quotes Justice Neil Gorsuch's 2022 dissent from the denial of review in an Arizona case: "Williams was wrong the day it was decided."
Why the Florida court did not wait
A lower court's choice in this situation is narrow. Only the Supreme Court can overrule its own precedent, and the Sixth District said so directly. The ruling still leaves Velazquez with a path. A conviction affirmed on direct appeal is not final in the constitutional sense until the time to seek further review runs out, and a new rule from the justices applies to cases that have not reached that point. Whether he and the other defendants in Florida's 5,200 pending appeals can benefit will depend on timing, on whether they objected at trial, and on how the Supreme Court writes its opinion.
For a sense of how much turns on what happens inside a jury room, see our explainer on what happens after a hung jury. The court heard another criminal case from a Southern state earlier this month, which we covered in our story on the Guerrero v. Johnson argument.
What to watch
Argument is on Wednesday, January 13. A decision would normally come by the end of June 2027. Until then, Florida's district courts of appeal can be expected to keep affirming six-person verdicts the way the Sixth District just did.
Two Taps News stories summarize reporting and the analysis discussed on Two Taps and Friends. They are not legal advice. Read our standards.
