The Florida Case That Almost Changed Jury Sizes From 6 to 12: Gonzalez v. State

October 23, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

In 2008, one major Florida court indicated its strong support for changing Florida’s jury laws requiring only 6 jurors, but could not due to Supreme Court precedent.

In Florida, the vast majority of criminal trials occur with a six-person jury. Under state law, just six churros are required to hear all felony or misdemeanor cases – with the exception of capital felonies (punishable by death).

Decades ago, Florida’s jury laws were challenged in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970). Williams argued that he was entitled to a twelve-person jury under the U.S. Constitution’s Sixth Amendment – but the Court disagreed. Since the Sixth Amendment did not explicitly require a set number of jurors, Florida’s jury laws were upheld.

However, the reasoning underlying Williams has been questioned by an increasing number of judges and legal advocates in recent years. Opposition to Williams increased after the Supreme Court decided in Ballew v. Georgia (1978) that a criminal defendant could not be convicted by a jury of five – as this was too small to ensure the jury would serve its “deliberate function.”

Because the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution (which outlines the right to a jury trial) says no such thing, many argued that the Court was subtly eroding Williams. Why was a jury of five unconstitutional, but a jury of six was considered satisfactory?

Many proponents of Williams countered that six was essentially the “bare minimum” number of jurors (according to studies) necessary to make room for potentially dissenting voices and ensure a defendant has a fair trial. But in recent years, data has emerged calling this into question – with many now arguing that there is barely a difference between five and six jurors.

Legal scholars have criticized Williams on the additional ground that it ignored common law and instead promoted a “functionalist” interpretation of the Bill of Rights. But common law (such as the writings of 18th century English jurist Sir William Blackstone) laid the foundation for the Sixth Amendment – not modern social science.

The common law tradition at the root of the Sixth Amendment, such as Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1769), were clear that juries in criminal trials (especially when charges are severe) require a “unanimous suffrage of twelve” before a verdict is rendered. In Blackstone’s eyes, twelve jurors must agree to find a defendant guilty, not six.

Despite the many arguments advanced in favor of a twelve-person jury (on both effectiveness and constitutional grounds), Florida’s jury laws remain set. In all cases where someone is charged with a non-capital offense (including if they face the possibility of life in prison), they are entitled only to a six-person jury.

Florida is the only state in the U.S. to consistently have six-person juries (the minimum under Ballew) seated in serious felony cases – including life felonies. Lessard v. State, 232 So. 3d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). However, one major case almost changed that. Let’s discuss it.

MAJOR CASE: Gonzalez v. State, 982 So.2d 77 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2008)

In Gonzalez, the defendant (Gonzalez) was convicted of second-degree murder. Because he was sentenced pursuant to Florida’s PRR (Prisoner Releasee Reoffender) statute, he automatically received life in prison without the possibility of parole. 

Notably, Gonzalez’s case was heard by a six-person (rather than twelve-person jury). This is because Gonzalez was being charged with a life felony, rather than a capital felony. As a result, Florida law did not require the empanelment of a jury of twelve – only six were required to hand down the verdict.

On appeal, Gonzalez raised multiple issues. One of these was the fact that he was not tried by a twelve-person jury, despite being automatically sentenced to life in prison. He asserted that this was a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights, as only half a dozen jurors was insufficient for such a serious case.

The 2nd DCA (Greater Tampa area) ultimately disagreed and affirmed Gonzalez’s conviction, holding that Florida law did not require a twelve-person jury. However, the 2nd DCA (led by Judge Altenbernd) penned a fifteen-page opinion that was remarkably critical of Florida’s jury laws and the U.S. Supreme Court’s Williams decision.

The 2nd DCA began by noting that the idea of a twelve-person jury had strong historical roots, dating back centuries:

“Throughout history, there is little question that many societies and cultures have relied on groups of twelve to make reliable decisions. Whether reliance on such duodecuple decision-making has only been based on a religious or cultural tradition of twelve or on some intuitive sense that a group of twelve is reliable is probably an unanswerable question. However, within the law, we quite reasonably give trust to solutions that have withstood the test of time, and the jury of twelve has clearly withstood that test.”

The 2nd DCA also discussed the significant increase in empirical evidence post-Williams on the issue of jury sizes. The court argued that the Williams majority’s belief that six jurors adequately performed the “deliberative function” was questionable:

“The extensive development in the study of small group decision-making since 1970 is well beyond the scope of this opinion. There clearly is more scientific evidence today than in 1970 that a twelve-person jury may be superior to a six-person jury to accomplish the functions, purposes, and goals identified by the Williams court.”

The 2nd DCA also noted that with the increasing role of juries in “deciding all facts that may increase the penalty for a crime” (given decisions such as Apprendi and Blakely), it is becoming even more important to ensure juries are large enough to ensure a defendant’s due process rights are not violated:

“These developments must also be reviewed in the context of an increased recognition of the jury’s central role in our judicial system, as reflected in recent Supreme Court precedent. In recent years, the Supreme Court has placed greater emphasis upon the jury as a critical participant in deciding factual issues that have an impact upon a defendant’s sentence…”

“In Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), in applying Apprendi and clarifying the definition of the ‘statutory maximum’ for any offense, the Court repeated its reference to the ‘suffrage of twelve,’ and then re-emphasized the critical nature of trial by jury.”

Essentially, the 2nd DCA observed that the U.S. Supreme Court had already tacitly affirmed the need for a twelve-person juries through its citing of Blackstone’s “suffrage of twelve” in many decisions after Williams v. Florida. Though this did not overrule Williams, the 2nd DCA argued that it undermined the logic of it. On this issue, the court wrote:

“If juries are to be the sole decision-makers on sentences of this severity, there clearly are reasonable people in addition to Mr. Gonzalez who at least intuitively believe that our system would make better, more legitimate decisions, based on the voices of a better cross-section of our community, if we trusted the jury of twelve that Blackstone trusted.”

However, despite calling Gonzalez’s arguments “persuasive,” the 2nd DCA concluded that it could not rule in his favor due to Williams being binding precedent:

“As persuasive as Mr. Gonzalez’s argument may be, this court is bound by existing Supreme Court precedent to hold that the six-person jury that convicted him was not, by sheer virtue of its size, constitutionally deficient. That argument must be made ultimately to the Supreme Court.”

In sum, Gonzalez v. State, 982 So.2d 77 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2008) was a major decision in Florida that was applauded by advocates of twelve-person juries. Though the court did not rule that a twelve-person jury is required in serious felony cases (as that would defy the U.S. Supreme Court’s Williams opinion), it effectively endorsed this position.

The logic of Gonzalez has been further supported in recent years by subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, including the Court’s requirement of a unanimous jury verdict in all criminal trials (Ramos v. Louisiana, 2020). For more on Ramos, which heavily cited common law and abandoned the “functionalist” approach of Williams v. Florida, click here.

If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida and concerned about jury selection, it is critical to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible. This decision could make the difference in whether or not someone faces a lengthy prison term and hefty fines.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share