Abstract

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.

How to Cite