## Facts

- Gonzalez, a Florida criminal defendant, sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court after proceedings in the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
- The Supreme Court docket entry at this citation is a short order disposing of the case by denying the petition for a writ of certiorari; the Court issued no opinion explaining its reasons.
- In support of the certiorari petition, twelve university professors submitted an amicus curiae brief urging the Court to take the case and address whether the Sixth Amendment permits criminal juries with fewer than 12 members.
- The amici focused on the Court’s earlier decision in *Williams v. Florida* (1970), which held that a 12-person jury is not constitutionally required and discussed what the amici described as a “functional equivalence” approach to evaluating jury size.
- The amici argued that *Williams* rested on limited and misunderstood empirical data, and that later research suggested six-person juries are less likely than 12-person juries to include at least one minority juror.
- The amici also relied on *Ballew v. Georgia* (1978), where the Court held that a five-person criminal jury falls below the constitutional minimum, noting that none of the opinions in *Ballew* applied the *Williams* functional-equivalence approach.
- According to the amici, after *Ballew* courts lacked a consistent method for deciding jury-size challenges, contributing to disagreement among jurisdictions.
- On December 1, 2008, the Supreme Court denied certiorari, leaving the Florida court’s judgment in place.

## Issues

1. Whether the U.S. Supreme Court should grant certiorari to consider whether the Sixth Amendment allows state criminal juries with fewer than 12 members.
2. Whether *Williams v. Florida* should be reconsidered in light of later research and subsequent Sixth Amendment jury-size decisions, including *Ballew v. Georgia*.
3. What, if any, workable constitutional test should govern challenges to criminal jury size after *Williams* and *Ballew*.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.
- The Court issued no merits decision and no explanation of its reasoning.
- The Florida court’s judgment remained effective between the parties, and existing Supreme Court doctrine on jury size was unchanged.

## Legal Principles

- A denial of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits and does not signal approval or disapproval of the lower court’s reasoning.
- A Supreme Court order denying certiorari creates no new binding precedent on the federal question presented.
- Under existing Supreme Court precedent, the Sixth Amendment does not require a 12-person jury in all criminal cases (*Williams v. Florida*), but there is a constitutional minimum below which jury size is impermissible (*Ballew v. Georgia* held that five jurors is too few).
- Arguments made in amicus briefs—such as empirical claims about representativeness and deliberation—may inform why review is sought, but they are not holdings of the Court, especially when certiorari is denied.

## Conclusion

*Gonzalez v. Florida* is a Supreme Court certiorari denial, not a merits opinion: the Court declined to review a Florida criminal case presented as a vehicle for revisiting Sixth Amendment limits on juries smaller than 12, leaving the lower-court judgment intact and leaving the Court’s prior jury-size decisions, including *Williams* and *Ballew*, in place without modification.


Gonzalez v. Florida, 555 U.S. 1056, 129 S. Ct. 647, 172 L. Ed. 2d 627 (2008)