Violating the Inviolate: The Right to a Twelve-Person Jury in the Wake of State v. Soliz

The Arizona Constitution provides that criminal defendants facing death or a minimum thirty-year prison term are entitled to a twelve-person jury. However, in a unanimous decision, the Arizona Supreme Court held that this constitutional provision was not violated when an eight-person jury convicted Basilio Soliz of possession of dangerous drugs for sale—a crime carrying a possible thirty-five-year sentence.

The Sixth Amendment of the Federal Constitution guarantees that defendants in criminal prosecutions are tried before an impartial jury. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has held that a jury of twelve “cannot be regarded as an indispensable component of the Sixth Amendment” and is “not a necessary ingredient of ‘trial by jury.'” Juries are necessary to keep the government honest and to form an “interposition between the accused and his accuser of the commonsense judgment of a group of laymen.” The specific number of people on a jury does not play a role in reliability of the jury and its ability to carry out its fact-finding function.

Historically, Arizona provided greater protection of a criminal defendant’s right to a jury trial than the federal Constitution. Although the Arizona Constitution states that “the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate,” the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in *State v. Soliz* calls the “inviolate” nature of this right into question. By holding that the state waives its ability to seek a sentence of thirty years or more when it requests a jury of less than twelve, the *Soliz* decision drastically narrowed the scope of a criminal defendant’s right to a twelve-person jury, bringing Arizona case law more in line with the U.S. Supreme Court’s approach to the Sixth Amendment. *Soliz* also clarifies an area of state law that has recently become complicated by technicalities and difficult to decipher.