Justice Requires 12 Angry Men
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120168447155709.html
Once in a while the Supreme Court gets a case — or a line of cases — completely wrong. The question of whether criminal juries of fewer than 12 citizens are constitutional is such a blunder.
This issue could soon come before the Supreme Court if the justices decide to hear Deltoro v. Florida. William Bolivar Deltoro was tried by a six-person jury and convicted in 2007 of sexually assaulting his daughter. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. In 47 other states and traditionally in common law, a trial for such a grave offense requires 12 jurors.
Deltoro’s trial by six was possible because, in 1970, the Supreme Court decided that when the Framers used the word “jury” in the Constitution they meant to specify no particular number of jurors. The court held that juries could be as small as six and perhaps even smaller.
The justices said these smaller groups would perform just as well as 12 — this notwithstanding that it ran contrary to the original meaning of the Constitution, tradition and precedent. The overwhelming weight of empirical social science evidence also shows juries smaller than 12 do not perform as well. The court will decide on Jan. 9 whether to hear the Deltoro case.
