By The bishops argue that the term “jury” in the U.S. has historically referenced a body of 12 jurors.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to require 12-person juries in criminal cases, with the bishops arguing against a Florida policy allowing smaller six-person juries in many cases.
The case Kian v. Florida, which the Supreme Court agreed to hear in June, was brought after Florida chiropractor Hamed Kian was convicted of five felony counts for practicing without a license.
Kian was found guilty by a six-person jury; the state of Florida only requires 12-person juries in capital cases. Several other states have similar rules.
Kian sued the state arguing that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to a 12-person jury. He lost his appeal at the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida and subsequently appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which will hold arguments in the case in its upcoming term.
In their amicus filing, the U.S. bishops argued that the term “jury” in the U.S. has historically referenced a body of 12 jurors; the bishops pointed to “Founding-era dictionaries” as well as “common-law history.”
The bishops said they have a “strong interest” in the case, insofar as the Catholic Church over the centuries has played a “central role in shaping the legal culture from which the common-law jury emerged.”
Among the historical examples of 12-person juries the bishops cited include the General Fundamentals of Plymouth, “the earliest codified legal system by English colonists in North America,” which guaranteed that “all trials” would be “tried by a jury of twelve good and lawful men.”
The prelates disputed the Supreme Court’s 1970 ruling in the case Williams v. Florida, which held that the Sixth Amendment does not require 12 jurors in court cases.
That ruling in part “discard[ed] the robust common-law history of the jury right,” while the high court in that decision “set far too high a bar for historical relevance,” they said.
The bishops further cited the biblical commandment to “love your neighbor justly.” They pointed to the Catholic catechism’s mandate for public authorities to “dispense justice humanely by respecting the rights of everyone.”
They urged the Supreme Court to “return to its previously long-held understanding that the Constitution entitles criminal defendants to a jury of twelve of their peers.”
Numerous advocacy groups have also filed amicus briefs advocating the 12-juror standard, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Innocence Project, several dozen current and former prosecutors, and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
The USCCB as a body has NO AUTHORITY to speak for American Catholics. And, besides, bishops are operating out of their lane when they get involved in matters of politics. They can hardly govern the Church.
Our Bishops through Apostolic succession do speak for us as Catholics. Politics is part of our role as citizens of this country.
The court system is not working in this country. I’ve been on 3 juries and don’t see much value in a jury of my peers, who mostly just want to go home.
Suzanne: you can’t help but get it wrong about almost everything.
A bishop holds his authority as a person consecrated as successor to the apostles. The USCCB as an organization holds no such authority. Each bishop has a threefold munera to govern, sanctify and to teach. Not any one of them references getting involved in politics. The political realm belongs solely to the laity in the Church to express their Catholic faith. Now commit what I’ve written to memory so you don’t keep on getting it wrong.
You are rudely wrong Deacon. Bishops teach by speaking on what it right and what is wrong. An assembly of bishops has the authority of their collective voice. As a Deacon you should know this. It’s so basic even those making their first Communion know it.
Suzanne: I fully intend to “rudely” instruct you since you are so obtuse. Better for you to read what others have to say before you weigh in. Do some study. Start with the Baltimore Catechism. Leave the heavy lifting to others.
The Bishops do need to vote. That should also be something encouraged from the pulpit to the laity.
Instead of juries, I’d rather have a panel of 7 attorneys decide my fate. These would have to be carefully selected locally, regionally etc.. They give juries no tools except one copy of jury instructions, at least in our area that’s how they do it, and expect the average citizen to “argue the case.” It’s outdated.
The Bishops’ job is to address matters of faith and morals. Before filing Amicus briefs on jury size, they should be addressing say the 95% of Catholics who actively contracept, cohabitate outside of marriage or “remarry” or deny the Real Presence. skip Mass or receive outside a state of grace . Of course that would involve an element of moral courage that few exhibit.
The number of jurors is not a matter of faith or morals. Mathematicians have tried to apply statistical models to assess jury size. (See The Mathematics of Jury Size MAR 23, 2012 American Institute of Physics) but one factor evades them juror interaction. Lawyers and psychologists offer various opinions and for all the spilled ink, we still don’t have convergence of opinions on the matter.
The office of Bishop conveys no special competence here. When the Church is not obligated to speak, it is obligated not to speak. However, the USCCB is becoming like “the love that dare not speak its name” and won’t shut up.
Instead of worrying about the number of jurors, they should be addressing individuals-whether potential or actual jurors about the need to observe the oaths they swear-to be fair, honest, objective, to weigh evidence fairly, considering
everything presented, not to speculate about evidence not presented and to be considerate of other jurors, who may weigh things differently. There are no rules for jury deliberations and nobody can really define a “reasonable doubt”.
Juror conduct is a matter of faith and morals. I’ve never seen it addressed.
Twelve is supposed to relate to a Welsh King considering Christ having twelve apostles. I’m not bound by the arbitrary judgment of somebody from the 700’s.
Now its a convention, but whether its the ideal number or better than any other is unknown.
You are so intelligent and wise.
Whether or not a specific jury size is advisable, desirable or necessary, there is a fundamental question here. What is the charism or confidence of Bishops to opine on matters of civil law that don’t really involve faith or morals, but a prudential judgment. For that matter what’s special about twelve> Why not twenty one?
If they were really concerned that a 12 person jury was a necessity, they should turn their attention to federal tax prosecution, which offers two avenues of appeal-and cleverly makes it difficult to obtain a jury trial. If you want a jury trial, you can elect go to the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, however you must pay the assessed deficiency first. If you elect the Tax Court route, you need not pay thev deficiency first, but there’s no jury.
Not confidence, competence. I hate autocorrect. the, not thev, completely my fault.
Aren’t they saying criminal law? If they’re gonna start expanding jury pools and selection then they need to start paying Jack and Jill a reasonable amount for showing up and/or being on an actual jury.
Why does the USCCB appeal to a U.S. Supreme Court that has only nine members and not twelve? Some politicians are separately interested in court packing up to a baker’s dozen (13).
Yes, at this point the alleged issue is not a criminal case in itself…but then what about the cited precedent at Plymouth? The folks whose claim to fame was their objection that the Anglican high church religious service looked too much like the Catholic Mass.
While the Plymouth standard actually was 12 members for a grand jury, the grand jury was 24 for the historic trial and conviction of John Billington on September 28, 1630, who was found guilty of shooting and killing his neighbor, John Newcomen, with a blunderbuss. The punishment was death by hanging (capital punishment).
The bishops are correct about the Church’s “central role in shaping the legal culture from which the common-law jury emerged.” A leading influence in the Magna Carta in A.D. 1215 was Stephen Langton, a Catholic cardinal and Archbishop of Canterbury.
They may or may not have the authority to urge this in the name of Catholic people, but with all the other things going on in the Church, they choose this? They have nothing better to do?
Apparently, our Bishops have both the apostolic Authority and the intelligence to speak on more than one issue of concern at a time.
Cite the authority.
Not that you would understand this, but there is such a thing as opportunity cost.
By what parameter do you measure intelligence?
Please remember who exactly it is we’re dealing with here. They are progressives, which means they will be interested in anything and everything except their calling. Why focus on the spiritual needs of the flock when you can virtue signal about politics?