Whether the Sixth Amendment requires a 12-member jury and mandates overruling Williams v. Florida's precedent allowing smaller juries

in Applicants’ case and due to counsel’s competing work obligations. 3. Applicants were charged in 2018 with various racketeering offenses related to their alleged involvement witha gang. App. 5a. The case proceeded to trial. App. 5a The trial began on October 21, 2021, with jury selection. App. 6a. The District Court empaneled 12 jurors and 3 alternate jurors. App. 6a, 13a. These jurors then spent the next three months hearing evidence and arguments in the case. 4. On January 20, 2022, the jury began deliberating. App. 13a. Immediately prior to deliberations, the District Court conditionally excused the alternate jurors. App. 13a. The District Court advised the alternates that if a juror became ill during the course of the deliberations, the court would contact an alternate and summon that person back to the courthouse for deliberations. App. 13a-14a. The 12-member jury deliberated for two days and then broke for the weekend. App. 14a. 5. Over the weekend, Juror 9 contacted the Clerk of Court to report that she had tested positive for COVID-19. App. 14a. Based on the District Court’s standing order pertaining to COVID-19, if Juror 9 were symptom free, deliberations could resume just one week later. App. 14a. & n.3. 6. When the parties returned to the courthouse on Monday morning, the District Court informed the Applicants of Juror 9’s illness and solicited input on how to proceed. App. 14a. The Government advocated proceeding under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23 with an 11-member jury. App. 15a. Applicants asked the District Court to either wait until Juror 9 was well before resuming deliberations or replace Juror 9 with an alternate juror. App. 15a. In support of their request, Applicants’ counsel argued that a 12-member jury is a constitutional requirement. See United States v. Parada, No. 22-04262 (4th Cir.), Doc. 87 at JA 1521. The District Court adopted the government’s proposal, excusing Juror 9 and proceeding with an 11-person jury. App. 16a. 7. The 11-member jury convicted Applicants of several racketeering offenses. App. 16a. Applicants appealed their convictions. App. 16a. 8. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision to proceed with an 11-member jury. App. 31a. In the Fourth Circuit’s view, “the district court found good cause to dismiss Juror 9 and proceed with an eleven-person jury only after soliciting the opinions of counsel and thoroughly considering all possible alternatives.” App. 30a. So, the Fourth Circuit did not find anything “about the process the district court undertook, or its oa explanation,” was “ ‘arbitrary or capricious.’” App. 31a (citation omitted). 9. Applicants intend to file a certiorari petition seeking this Court’s review of the Fourth Circuit’s decision on the grounds that the District Court violated Applicants’ Sixth Amendment right to a 12-member jury. Although the Supreme Court held in Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970), that juries of less than 12-members are permissible, Williams should be overruled. Williams did not properly account for the original intent of the Framers that a jury would consist of 12 members. 10. Jo-Ann Tamila Sagar of Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, D.C., was retained by Applicants to file a petition for certiorari in this Court. Good cause exists for the extension, as counsel of record was retained recently in this matter, and additional time is needed to review the record in these proceedings and prepare a petition that best serves the needs of Applicants. In addition, counsel of record is occupied with briefing deadlines for a variety of matters,