
Khorrami v. Arizona
What's at Stake
This case concerns whether a person charged with a felony is guaranteed the right to a 12-person jury trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Summary
Ramin Khorrami, a man charged with blackmailing a woman with whom he had been having an affair, was convicted by a jury with only eight members. Khorrami argued that the 8-person jury violated his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury which, as he claimed, must comprise 12 members.
The 勛圖眻畦 and the 勛圖眻畦 of Arizona submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of Khorramis petition for certiorari. The 勛圖眻畦 argued that the original meaning of jury as the term is used in the Constitution, was a body of 12 members. The brief recounts that when the Constitution was ratified, English common law required 12-member juries so Americans at the time likewise understood a jury to consist of 12 people. Post-ratification cases and treatises also demonstrate that jury in the Constitution was originally understood to be comprised of 12 members.
The Supreme Court denied review on November 7, 2022.
Legal Documents
-
07/07/2022
勛圖眻畦's Amicus Brief in Support of Petitioner
Date Filed: 07/07/2022
Court: Supreme Court