Robert Armendaris v. Arizona

ISSUE This Court long interpreted the Sixth Amendment consistent with how our founders understood it. One component of that right was that criminal defendants “should be tried by a jury composed of not less than twelve persons.” Thompson v. Utah, 170 U.S. 343, 350 (1898). Of this conclusion, this Court reasoned, “there can be no doubt.” Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 586 (1900). In Williams v. Florida, the Court shifted to a functionalist approach. Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 99-100 (1970). Parting from decades of jurisprudence, the majority concluded that 12 people were not necessary to the function of the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 100-01. Six jurors were enough. Id. Two years later, this functionalist approach became the basis for a plurality decision discarding jury unanimity in Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 411 (1972). But in the unanimity context, this Court rejected the functionalist approach just six years ago in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83, 100 (2020). Rather, this Court was guided by how our founders understood the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 89-93. The obvious tension between Williams and Ramos has led many to call for this Court to reconsider Williams—including Justice Gorsuch. See Khorrami v. Arizona, 598 U.S. __, 143 S. Ct. 22 (2022) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Cunningham v. Florida, 144 S. Ct. 1287 (2024) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). This Petition asks: Does the Sixth Amendment guarantee the right to a 12-person jury?