The United States Supreme Court has just stepped in directly into a massive constitutional clash that could completely upend the criminal justice system operating in many states and really impact all Americans.
If you believe that your right to a fair trial is completely safe under the Bill of Rights, you need to watch out because the Supreme Court just granted review on a critical case that exposes how some governments have been completely shortchanging your foundational constitutional protections for over 50
years.
This Monday the Supreme Court agreed to take up a critical challenge on this jury trial issue.
On paper this started as a local dispute involving a state licensing case, but now it has become a question of what the founders of our country actually meant by a right to a jury trial.
Currently six different states have been actively bypassing the traditional 12-person jury requirement convicting citizens using a shrunken six-person jury.
The current conservative majority of the Supreme Court just signaled that they are ready to fully tear that loophole down by taking this case, but the fallout from this upcoming ruling is going to trigger a shockwave that impacts all Americans.
So we need to break down what just happened in this case.
Now before we jump into what the Supreme Court just did, if you like this type of content make sure to like, subscribe, and turn on all notifications to make sure that you never miss any of this information.
Now to understand why this case kind of sent shockwaves through the legal community yesterday when the Supreme Court granted review to this case, we have to look at kind of the bizarre facts that brought this case all the way up to the Supreme Court.
The petitioner
here is a Florida resident um essentially who was charged by state prosecutors with multiple felony counts of actually practicing chiropractic medicine with a suspended license.
Now under normal circumstances in a federal court, if you face serious prison time, you are guaranteed a traditional robust 12-person jury to stand between you and the power of the state.
But, Florida, along with five other states, including Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, and Utah, have exceptions.
For non-capital offenses, they shrink your constitutional shield down to just six-person juries.
The individual here, Keon, was forced into a trial before a shrunken six-person panel.
He was convicted and then sentenced to over a year in prison, followed by 5 years of probation.
The individual here fought back demanding a Sixth Amendment right to a full 12-person jury.
Now, this went to the state court of appeals, and the state appeals court outright rejected his arguments, and they pointed to a 1970 Supreme Court precedent called Williams versus Florida.
In that older ruling, a past Supreme Court used a cost-benefit analysis claiming that a shrunken six-person jury could be equally effective as a traditional 12-person jury.
But, he has now brought this case all the way to the Supreme Court arguing that the prior precedent is now essentially gone, that it should be overridden, and that the era of watering down the Bill of Rights is officially over.
He argues that the Supreme Court precedent has changed since that ruling, and that the court should now officially overrule that prior decision.
Now, this sudden escalation proves exactly why you can never assume that your rights are always going to be protected.
Instead, you need elite protection from a self-defense law firm and from attorneys that know what they’re doing, especially if you ever find yourself in a self-defense instant.
That is why I partner with Attorneys on Retainer.
Unlike standard prepaid legal plans or self-defense insurance programs that look for, you know, any regulatory loophole or licensing technicality to drop your coverage, AOR’s program will stand by you regardless.
So, they’re always trying to actually protect their members.
They’re always expanding upon their benefits, and they don’t have a bunch of loopholes that will actually drop your coverage.
So, if If interested in AOR, you can check them out using the links down below.
And right now for my viewers, if you use my exclusive code armscholarly, you can get $50 off of your individual sign-up fee or $25 off the family sign-up fee.
Now, you may be asking why did the Supreme Court finally grant review to this case this week after almost 50 years of this issue? Well, that’s because the individuals here and his petition completely corners the Supreme Court using their own modern logic in some recent rulings.
In his petition for review, Iquian here pointed directly to a massive landmark victory from a 2020 case called Ramos versus Louisiana.
In that case, the Supreme Court completely struck down non-unanimous jury verdicts ruling that the Sixth Amendment must be interpreted exactly as it was understood when the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791.
The Supreme Court in Ramos explicitly rejected the exact kind of cost-benefit analysis that was used in that prior 1970s case stating that it is not the job of judges to decide which historic features of a jury trial are important enough to actually keep and which ones they can actually discard.
Iquian’s argument goes back to the originalist concepts and focuses on the intent of the founders.
He argues that at the founding of this country, the word jury actually meant one thing and actually one thing only, which was 12 ordinary citizens reviewing your case.
When the people enshrined that right, they did not attach a rider or some sort of caveat allowing future state bureaucrats to downsize, you know, that jury trial and you know, to do that just because they want to save some money.
Now, this is where this case applies to all Americans, especially if you’re also a gun owner, because we know that us exercising our Second Amendment right could expose us to a lot of things because especially some states do not simply like us exercising our rights.
So, think about it if the government is allowed to prosecute complex, high-stakes Second Amendment cases, or technical compliance violations before a shrunken six-person jury, it becomes drastically easier to secure a conviction.
It takes far less effort for
the state to manipulate or pressure six people than it does to convince potentially 12.
Also, this impacts your fundamental rights as an American by watering down what protections the founders intended in the Sixth Amendment.
Now, Florida’s Attorney General actually desperately tried to stop the Supreme Court from taking this case, and he wrote a brief in opposition arguing that the Supreme Court should have rejected this case.
But, of course, we just found out that the Supreme Court granted review.
The state openly admitted that if the Supreme Court overrules the old loophole, it will instantly imperil thousands of active criminal convictions in Florida and other states, the five other states that do this.
And, you know, you would pretty much upend, you know, some of the things that they’ve been doing for the last 50 years.
The government is worried because if the Supreme Court overrides their prior precedent, it would open the door to challenges in some current cases, and then also maybe some prior cases as well that maybe used six-person juries.
So, make no mistake, by granting review to this case yesterday, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has potentially signaled a massive, potential change on a critical constitutional right.
They are poised potentially to declare that states cannot alter, shrink, or dilute the literal text of the Bill of Rights under the guise of administrative convenience and cost savings.
The constitutional shield of 12-person juries is currently on the verge of potentially a total nationwide restoration, but until the final ruling drops by the Supreme Court next term, every serious felony criminal trial across kind of those major six states remains kind of in a legal minefield, and now they’re going to be curious, you
know, what is the Supreme Court going to do.
So, that is the critical case the Supreme Court just granted review to this week.
The loophole has been challenged and the government is officially kind of panicking because this case was granted review by the court.
So, I will be tracking this case as it moves forward to those oral arguments next term.
If you want to stay ahead and stay in tune with what is going on in this case, I highly recommend that you like this video, subscribe, and also turn on the notification icon because that will let you know whenever I release these types of videos.
Also, let me know down in the comment section, do you think the Supreme Court is going to find that the founders believed that a right to a jury trial was exclusive to just 12 people juries, or are states allowed to reduce the number of jurors to just, you know, six people potentially? And do you think
the Supreme Court is going to override their prior precedent? So, as always, thank you guys so much for all of your support, and never forget this nation was built by armed scholars, and this nation will be maintained by armed scholars.
