Whether Petitioner was derived of his right, under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, to a trial by a 12 person jury when the defendant is charged with a serious felony?

QUESTION PRESENTED In Thompson v. Utah, 170 U.S. 343 (1898), the Court held that the Sixth Amendment guaranteed the right of criminal defendants to a determination of guilt by a twelve-member jury as provided by common law. The Court continued to so hold until it ruled in Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970), that the Sixth Amendment does not forbid a criminal conviction in state court by a six-member jury. Williams was based not on the historical foundation of the Sixth Amendment, but on then-current social science and the view that the Fourteenth Amendment applied an attenuated version of the Sixth Amendment jury trial right to the states. Also in the early 1970’s, the Court held — consistently with Williams’s ahistorical approach and application of an attenuated Sixth Amendment to the states — that a state court jury need not be unanimous in criminal cases. Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972). In Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. 83 (2020), the Court receded from Apodaca, ruling that state court criminal defendants are entitled to a unanimous jury verdict as provided by common law. Further, the social science research supporting Williams has been washed away by later research. In view of Ramos and the change in i social science research, the time has come to revisit Williams. The question presented is: Whether Petitioner was derived of his right, under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, to a trial by a 12person jury when the defendant is charged with a serious felony? ii