I’m Rocky Brancato, founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm. I’ve tried more than 150 jury trials to verdict in my 25+ years in Hillsborough County courtrooms — almost all of them to six jurors — and our attorneys are now raising and preserving the jury-size issue in cases across Tampa Bay while the Supreme Court decides.

How Many Jurors Sit on a Florida Criminal Jury?

Six — unless the charge is a capital one, such as first-degree murder. Section 913.10, Florida Statutes, sets the number:

That means a person facing decades in prison on a robbery, trafficking, or attempted murder charge in Florida gets half the jury a shoplifting defendant would get in most other states — and half the jury any defendant gets in federal court across the street. The verdict must still be unanimous: all six jurors must agree to convict.

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — Tampa trial defense — (813) 727-7159

According to the federal Defender Services Office, Florida is one of only six states that still use fewer than twelve jurors in at least some criminal trials — and Florida applies the six-person jury more broadly than any of them, to every noncapital crime on the books. Our attorneys try cases in front of these six-person panels every year, and the arithmetic matters: with six jurors, a defendant needs to reach just one less skeptical mind, but also gets far fewer chances that someone on the panel sees the case the way the defense does.

Which Florida Cases Actually Get a Twelve-Person Jury?

Capital murder cases — and that entitlement holds even when the State chooses not to seek the death penalty. In State v. Griffith, 561 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1990), the Florida Supreme Court held that a prosecutor “cannot, by electing not to seek the death penalty, change the classification of an offense from capital to noncapital” — so a defendant indicted for first-degree murder keeps the statutory right to twelve jurors unless that right is waived, something the defense should never let happen by accident.

The “capital felony” label alone, though, is not what controls. Capital sexual battery — despite carrying that label — is tried to a six-person jury unless the State is actually seeking the death penalty, because Florida defines a capital case for jury purposes as one where death is a possible punishment. State v. Hogan, 451 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1984); Phillips v. State, No. 1D19-0470 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 23, 2021). Sit with what that leaves: charges carrying mandatory life — trafficking with decades of minimums, attempted murder, armed robbery, capital sexual battery itself — are decided by six people. In our felony practice across the 13th Judicial Circuit, the twelve-person jury is a genuine rarity, which is exactly why the question the Supreme Court just agreed to answer reaches nearly every serious case in this state.

Is a Six-Person Jury Legal?

Yes — for now, because of a case that came out of Florida itself. In Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the 12-man panel is not a necessary ingredient of ‘trial by jury,’” and that Florida’s six-person jury did not violate the Sixth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the number twelve was a historical accident rather than a functional necessity, and that what matters is whether the jury is large enough to promote group deliberation, resist outside intimidation, and represent a cross-section of the community.

Eight years later, the Court drew the floor. In Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978), it struck down Georgia’s five-person jury, concluding — based on a body of empirical studies — that “the purpose and functioning of the jury in a criminal trial is seriously impaired, and to a constitutional degree, by a reduction in size to below six members.” So the line has sat at six ever since: five is unconstitutional, six is permitted, and Florida has stayed at the constitutional minimum for over half a century.

Why Does Jury Size Matter?

Because the research the Supreme Court itself relied on in Ballew shows smaller juries deliberate worse. The Ballew Court found that as juries shrink, they are less likely to have members who remember each important piece of evidence, less able to counterbalance individual jurors’ biases, and less likely to represent a true cross-section of the community — and that smaller panels raise the risk of convicting the innocent.

For the defense, the practical stakes are concrete. A Florida verdict must be unanimous, so every juror is a potential holdout against a weak case — and six jurors means half as many people who might catch the flaw in the State’s evidence, half as many life experiences in the room, and far fewer minority voices on any given panel. When our attorneys pick a jury at the Hillsborough County Courthouse, we are choosing six people who will carry the full weight most states spread across twelve. That is exactly the concern now in front of the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court Is Reconsidering: Kian v. Florida

On June 15, 2026, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Kian v. Florida, No. 25-6623, to decide whether a defendant is deprived of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights “to a trial by a 12-person jury when the defendant is charged with a serious felony.” The case comes out of Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal, where Hamed Kian was convicted by a unanimous six-person jury of five felony counts of practicing chiropractic medicine with a suspended license. It asks the Court to reconsider Williams itself.

Challengers have been knocking on this door for years. Florida’s appellate courts have repeatedly rejected six-person jury challenges — the Fourth District did so again in Gonzales v. State, No. 4D2025-2161 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug. 26, 2026), citing its earlier decision in Guzman v. State, 350 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022), and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take the issue up as recently as 2024 in Cunningham v. Florida, 144 S. Ct. 1287 (2024). But those same August 2026 opinions now add three words that tell you everything about where this is heading: “But see Kian.” The Court that would not hear the issue two years ago has now agreed to hear it, with argument expected in the October 2026 term.

Here is the road that led there:

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — (813) 727-7159

Ramos matters in this story for a reason: in Ramos v. Louisiana, the Court overruled decades of tolerance for non-unanimous verdicts because history and the jury’s function demanded it. The Kian petition asks the Court to apply that same reasoning to jury size. No one knows how Kian will come out — but the Court does not take cases like this to leave everything as it is.

What Happens to Florida Cases While Kian Is Pending?

Six-person juries remain fully legal, and Florida courts are still bound by Williams until the Supreme Court says otherwise. Florida’s appellate courts made that explicit this summer: in Rogers v. State, No. 6D2025-0883 (Fla. 6th DCA June 29, 2026), the court refused to let a defendant add the jury-size issue after briefing closed, holding that claims based on a cert grant “are speculative and premature” — and, critically, that a defendant who never raised the issue has waived it.

That waiver holding is the practical heart of this entire subject. Rogers also acknowledged the other side of the coin: if the Supreme Court announces a new rule, defendants whose appeals were already final “could seek post-conviction relief to the same extent as any other person” — but whether a new rule would apply retroactively to final cases is a separate question Florida courts would have to resolve. New rules generally apply to cases still pending on direct review; they reach final convictions only through a much narrower retroactivity doctrine. In plain terms: the people best positioned to benefit from a defense win in Kian are the ones whose lawyers put the objection on the record before their case became final.

How Do You Preserve the Jury-Size Issue in Your Case?

By putting it on the record at every stage — even though today’s courts will deny it. When our firm handles a felony case heading to trial while Kian is pending, preservation looks like this:

1. Demand a twelve-person jury in writing before trial. The motion will almost certainly be denied under Williams and § 913.10 — the point is the record.
2. Object when the six-person panel is sworn. A contemporaneous objection anchors the issue at trial, where appellate courts require it to be made.
3. Raise it in the opening brief on appeal. Rogers shows what happens when it appears late: waiver, no matter what the Supreme Court does afterward.
4. Track finality. A case pending on direct review when Kian is decided stands on far stronger ground than one that became final the month before — timing decisions, including whether to seek rehearing, can matter.

None of this costs the defense anything, and all of it is insurance. Our attorneys are building these records now in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco County cases, because the cheapest issue to preserve is the one you preserve before the law changes.

Facing a Felony Trial in Tampa Bay While Kian Is Pending?

If you or a family member has a felony case heading toward trial, this is a moment when the calendar itself is a defense consideration. The jury that decides the case, the objections made before it is sworn, and the timing of the appeal could all look different a year from now. Call The Brancato Law Firm at (813) 727-7159 — our attorneys can evaluate whether the jury-size issue belongs in your case and make sure nothing is waived while the Supreme Court decides.

Frequently Asked Questions: Florida Jury Size and Kian v. Florida

How many jurors are on a jury in Florida?

Six, in every criminal case except capital cases, which get twelve. Fla. Stat. § 913.10. In our Tampa Bay trials, that means six jurors decide felonies carrying decades of prison exposure.

Does a Florida jury verdict have to be unanimous?

Yes — all six jurors must agree before a defendant can be convicted, and a single holdout means no conviction. That unanimity requirement is one reason jury selection is where our attorneys invest so heavily in every trial.

What is Kian v. Florida?

Kian v. Florida, No. 25-6623, is a U.S. Supreme Court case, accepted for review on June 15, 2026, that will decide whether trying a serious felony to a six-person jury violates the Sixth Amendment. It asks the Court to reconsider Williams v. Florida, the 1970 decision that approved Florida’s six-person jury.

Is a six-person jury unconstitutional?

Not under current law — Williams v. Florida upheld six-person juries in 1970, and Florida courts remain bound by it while Kian is pending. Five-person juries, however, have been unconstitutional since Ballew v. Georgia in 1978. We treat the question as live and preserve it in our clients’ cases.

If the Supreme Court strikes down six-person juries, will it apply to old cases?

Nobody knows yet — new constitutional rules generally apply to cases still pending on direct appeal, while reaching already-final convictions requires a separate retroactivity ruling. That uncertainty is exactly why preserving the issue now matters so much; The Brancato Law Firm is doing that in pending cases rather than betting on retroactivity later.

How long has Florida used six-person juries?

Well over a century — the Florida Supreme Court upheld the six-person jury as early as 1877 in Gibson v. State, 16 Fla. 291, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s nationwide approval of the practice in 1970 came in a Florida case, Williams v. Florida. In our experience, most clients are surprised to learn the tradition is that old — and that it has never before faced the direct reconsideration it faces now in Kian.

Can my lawyer demand a 12-person jury in Florida right now?

Yes — the demand will be denied under current law, but making it in writing and objecting at trial is what preserves the issue if Kian changes the rule. The attorneys of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. build that record in felony cases heading to trial. Call (813) 727-7159 for a free, confidential consultation.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our Hillsborough County Criminal Defense page.

Related reading: How Trial Preparation Builds a Stronger Defense · How to Decide Whether to Accept a Plea Bargain · How Does a Bond Hearing Work in Tampa? · The Complete Guide to Homicide Charges in Florida

The Law May Be About to Change — Your Record Should Be Ready

Kian v. Florida will likely be argued this term, and the defendants who benefit will be the ones whose lawyers preserved the issue before the decision came down. If you’re facing a felony charge in Hillsborough, Pinellas, or Pasco County, call the attorneys of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato — at (813) 727-7159. What goes on the record before your trial may decide what relief is available after the Supreme Court rules.

Brancato Law Firm, P.A., 620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. is a Tampa-based criminal defense practice. We are not affiliated with any other Brancato-named law firms.

At The Brancato Law Firm, we take a different approach. Lead attorney Rocky Brancato has tried over 150 jury cases to verdict across homicide,sex crimes, child abuse, and violent felonies during 25+ years of exclusive criminal defense. We prepare every case as if it will go before a jury, and that level of preparation is what creates real leverage, whether your case ends in a dismissal, a negotiated resolution, or a trial verdict.

Why So Few Criminal Cases in Florida Go to Trial

Pew Research Center data, drawn from the National Center for State Courts, shows that Florida’s criminal jury-trial rate sits at just 1.53%. 

Roughly 98% of criminal cases in Florida are resolved without a jury through plea agreements, dismissals, or diversion programs.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers calls the gap between plea offers and post-trial sentences the “trial penalty.” 

The Florida Bar’s Criminal Law Section has openly debated the institutional pressure on judges and prosecutors to move cases through the system as quickly as possible.

This creates a real problem for defendants. When your attorney’s primary strategy is negotiating a plea, prosecutors have little incentive to offer favorable terms. They know your attorney won’t push the case to trial, so they don’t have to.

What Happens When Your Attorney Only Negotiates

Some defense attorneys in the Tampa Bay area present themselves as trial lawyers but focus almost exclusively on negotiating plea deals. They may resolve cases quickly, but often before they have fully challenged the State’s evidence. This approach can leave you vulnerable and close the door on a potential dismissal or a more favorable resolution.

Choosing a criminal trial attorney who actually prepares for trial changes the dynamic entirely.

The Brancato Law Firm’s Two-Track Defense System

The Brancato Law Firm’s Trial-First Defense Approach

We are trial-ready, not deal-ready. Every case we take is prepared as if the trial is the destination.

• Trial Preparation from Day One. We assume nothing and immediately begin building a robust trial strategy. Our team prepares for a jury trial by filing motions to suppress evidence, challenging forensic conclusions, deposing witnesses, and issuing subpoenas for records the State would rather we not see. Rocky Brancato spent roughly 24 years at the Hillsborough County Public Defender’s Office, rising to Chief Operations Officer where he oversaw a staff of over 100 attorneys and 200+ total employees. That institutional knowledge of how the criminal justice system works, from charging policies to courtroom procedure, shapes how we build every case.

• A Reputation Prosecutors Already Know. Preparation alone is only part of the equation. Prosecutors in Hillsborough County know our firm and they know our track record across 150+ jury trials. When The Brancato Law Firm is on a case file, they don’t learn that we will be ready for trial. They already know it. That reputation creates immediate pressure for the State to honestly evaluate whether their evidence can survive cross-examination and forensic scrutiny.

How Trial Readiness Protects You in Tampa

Our preparation pressures the State to evaluate their case knowing we are prepared to expose any flaw in their arguments in open court. This is why trial readiness matters even when a case never goes to trial. It puts you in a position of strength at every stage.

When a favorable resolution is possible, our preparation is the reason it’s favorable. When trial is the only way to protect your rights, we are ready. We handle criminal defense across homicide, sex crimes, DUI, domestic violence, drug crimes, weapons offenses, child abuse, and violent crimes, and every case receives the same trial-level preparation.

The pressure to plead guilty is real. Defendants who exercise their right to trial sometimes face harsher sentences than what was offered in a plea, a concept known as vindictive sentencing or the “trial tax.” The best defense against this pressure is an attorney whose trial record makes prosecutors take the case seriously from the start.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between a plea negotiator and a criminal trial attorney in Tampa?

A plea negotiator focuses primarily on reaching a deal with the prosecution, often without fully testing the State’s evidence. A criminal trial attorney prepares every case for trial by filing motions, challenging forensic evidence, deposing witnesses, and building a complete defense strategy. That preparation gives your attorney stronger negotiating leverage because the prosecution knows your attorney can and will go to trial if the offer is not fair.

Do most criminal cases in Florida go to trial?

No. Fewer than 2% of criminal cases in Florida are decided by a jury, according to data from the National Center for State Courts. The remaining cases are resolved through plea agreements, dismissals, or diversion programs. This is why choosing an attorney who actually prepares for trial matters. When prosecutors know your attorney is unlikely to try the case, they have less incentive to offer a favorable resolution.

Talk to a Tampa Criminal Trial Attorney Today

If you are facing criminal charges in the Tampa Bay area, you need a defense team whose trial record speaks for itself. The Brancato Law Firm brings 150+ jury trials to verdict, 25+ years of exclusive criminal defense experience, and death-penalty-qualified trial preparation to every case.

Call (813) 727-7159 for a free, confidential consultation. We are available 24/7 for arrest emergencies.

By Rocky Brancato

Early in my career, I tried a case that taught me a lesson I still carry today: never accept the narrative that police and prosecutors present at face value. Although the case made headlines across Florida, and although the State’s theory seemed airtight, I discovered something important when I dug deeper. As a young attorney facing witnesses who thought they could push me around, I learned that thorough investigation changes everything.

To this day, every time I feel tempted to cut corners—to believe the story the State tells without digging deeper—I think about this case and what thorough investigation revealed.

The Case That Made Headlines

My client sat in a Correctional Institution in the Florida Panhandle, serving two life sentences plus 55 years. Years earlier, a Broward County jury had convicted him of a violent crime. Consequently, he faced spending the rest of his life behind bars.

Then something strange happened. The Florida Department of Corrections notified the original prosecutor that my client would soon walk free. According to prison records, court orders had dramatically reduced his sentences. As a result, with credit for time served, he would leave prison in a matter of months.

The prosecutor reacted with shock. After checking with the court, he discovered that no judge had ever granted such a sentence reduction. Therefore, he concluded that someone had forged the documents in the prison’s possession.

News organizations across the state picked up the story. Headlines announced that a dangerous inmate had nearly “forged his own release.” Meanwhile, the prosecutor gave interviews portraying himself as the hero who caught the scheme. Subsequently, authorities charged my client with attempted escape, and he faced an additional 30 years in prison.

That’s when I got the case.

The State’s Theory

The prosecution’s theory seemed simple and convincing: my client had forged court documents and submitted them to the prison to secure his release. After all, he had a history of forgery. Moreover, he was intelligent and desperate. Therefore, case closed—or so they thought.

When reporters asked how the Department of Corrections had accepted the documents, officials responded confidently: “We followed procedures. The order was verified.”

That statement immediately caught my attention. If officials had verified the documents, I wanted to know exactly how they had done so.

Reconstructing the Paper Trail

I went to work immediately. Because this happened before electronic filing became standard, court orders arrived at prisons by mail, on paper. If my client had forged these documents, I needed to understand exactly how they had entered the system.

First, I took depositions from everyone involved. I questioned the Department of Corrections personnel who had received and processed the documents. Next, I deposed the judge whose signature appeared on the orders. Finally, I deposed the prosecutor who had made headlines claiming to have caught the scheme.

Throughout this process, I meticulously followed the paper trail. What I discovered surprised even me:

• Officials logged the documents into the prison’s official mail system. The Department of Corrections maintained logs for all incoming mail, with a separate log for official court documents. Notably, these orders appeared on the official log.
• The documents originated from the court—not a random address. In other words, no one had mailed them from some outside location. Instead, they arrived through official channels, originating from the Broward County courthouse.
• The clerk of court had clocked in the documents. As a result, the court system contained a record of them.
• The signature matched the judge’s handwriting. Importantly, no one disputed this fact. The signature on the documents looked consistent with the judge’s authentic signature.

The Fingerprint in the Clerk’s File

After I had reconstructed the paper trail and demonstrated verification at each level, the State produced another piece of evidence: they claimed my client’s fingerprint appeared on the order.

However, here was the critical problem: the fingerprint allegedly appeared on the document sitting in the actual clerk of court’s file in Broward County.

Think carefully about what this means. My client remained incarcerated in a maximum security prison in the Panhandle. Meanwhile, the document with his alleged fingerprint sat in the clerk’s file at the Broward County courthouse, hundreds of miles away. When exactly did he touch it? More importantly, how could he possibly have touched it?

At trial, I challenged the fingerprint examiner directly. The examiner could not adequately demonstrate the methodology—specifically, he could not show the jury exactly why this print matched my client and could not have come from anyone else. Consequently, the science did not hold up under scrutiny.

But even setting aside the examiner’s problems, the logistics made no sense. If my client had forged this document from inside prison, how did it end up in the official court file with his print on it? Either he had outside help—or the document was not a forgery at all.

Two Possibilities

I deliberately avoided arguing that the document was or was not authentic. I did not need to make that argument. Instead, I showed the jury that the State’s theory—that my client had forged these documents from inside a prison cell—simply did not add up.

Consider what I demonstrated: the documents came through official channels, clerks logged them at every checkpoint, the signature matched the judge’s handwriting, and they ended up in the official court file.

Given these facts, only two possibilities existed: either this involved an inside job with people who had access to the court system, or the judge had actually signed the order.

Either way, the State had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that my client—locked in a cell hundreds of miles away—had forged anything.

The Hanging Chad Defense

The trial took place in Pensacola, in the conservative Florida Panhandle. Significantly, it occurred not long after the 2000 presidential election—the election that came down to Florida, to Broward County, and to hanging chads.

The whole country had just watched Broward County officials bungle one of the most important elections in American history. People remembered the butterfly ballots, the dimpled chads, and the recounts that never seemed to end. For months, South Florida bureaucrats had served as a national punchline.

Now the State asked a conservative Pensacola jury to trust that those same South Florida officials had correctly identified a forgery. Keep in mind, the documents had traveled through official channels, bore an authentic-looking signature, passed verification at every checkpoint, and sat in the official court file.

The Witness Who Underestimated Me

I was a young attorney at the time. The State called two prosecutors from Fort Lauderdale to testify—the prosecutor who had made headlines for catching the scheme, and a chief assistant state attorney.

During my cross-examination of the chief assistant, he tried to belittle me. In front of the jury, he attempted to “mentor” me on how I was asking questions. He seemed to think he could push around the young defense attorney and score points with the jury in the process.

He was wrong.

I had done the work. The depositions were completed. I had reconstructed the entire paper trail. I knew every detail of how those documents had traveled through the system. His condescension did not change the facts—and the facts did not support the State’s theory.

The Verdict

The jury returned with their verdict: Not guilty.

No one ever publicized the verdict. I felt satisfied with the result, and reaching out to the media would not have benefited my client. The headlines had called him a forger who nearly escaped. The quiet verdict told a different story.

The jury found reasonable doubt because I showed them that the State’s theory required believing something that made no sense. They did not need to decide whether the judge had signed the order or whether someone else had helped. They simply needed to see that the State had not proven my client did it.

The Lesson I Carry to This Day

This case taught me to never accept the narrative that police and prosecutors present at face value.

Consider what the State had: a complete theory, newspaper coverage that had already convicted my client, an elected judge as a witness, and an experienced prosecutor who had made himself the hero of the story. Everything seemed wrapped up neatly.

However, when I did the work—when I deposed everyone, followed every document, and reconstructed every step of the chain—the “airtight” case fell apart completely.

To this day, every time I feel tempted to cut corners, every time I feel tempted to believe the story the State tells without digging deeper, I think about this case. I remember what thorough investigation revealed. And then I do the work.

What This Means for You

If you face criminal charges, the State will present a theory. They will have evidence. They may have witnesses who seem credible and experts who seem authoritative. The newspapers may have already decided you are guilty.

Nevertheless, theories can be challenged. Evidence can be scrutinized. Witnesses can be cross-examined effectively. And when an attorney commits to doing the hard work of investigation and preparation, cases that seem impossible to win can indeed be won.

That lesson has guided my practice for over 25 years. I learned it as a young attorney in a Pensacola courtroom, facing a witness who thought he could push me around.

He was wrong. And the jury agreed.

About the Author

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato is the founding attorney of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a criminal defense practice in Tampa, Florida. With more than 25 years of experience—including service as Chief Operations Officer of the Hillsborough County Public Defender’s Office—Rocky has built a career on the principle that thorough investigation wins cases. He has tried hundreds of cases and continues to apply the lessons from cases like this one to every client he represents.

Related Articles

• The Injuries Were Real, But They Were Not From the Alleged Rape
• A Hard Lesson About Jail Visits in Tampa
• Top 10 Criminal Defense Strategies in Tampa
• Tampa Criminal Trial Attorney
• Florida Criminal Trial Consulting