The Florida District Court of Appeal has affirmed the conviction of Anthony J. Damiano for fleeing and eluding a law enforcement officer. This decision, filed on October 30, 2026, impacts Damiano and others facing similar charges regarding jury size and constitutional rights. The court ruled that his conviction by a six-person jury did not violate his rights under current legal precedent.

The case, documented under docket number 2D2025-1882, arose from an incident where Damiano was charged with fleeing from law enforcement, a serious offense under Florida law. The ruling is significant as it touches on the constitutionality of jury sizes in felony cases, a topic that has garnered attention in legal circles.

Background

Anthony J. Damiano was convicted in the County Court for Manatee County for the crime of fleeing to elude a law enforcement officer, as defined by Florida Statute § 316.1935(1). This statute outlines the legal repercussions for individuals who do not stop when signaled by a law enforcement officer. The case reached the District Court of Appeal after Damiano appealed his conviction, arguing that his trial by a six-person jury violated his constitutional rights.

The appeal was based on the premise that serious felony charges, such as fleeing law enforcement, should be tried by a jury of twelve, as traditionally required in many jurisdictions. Damiano's legal team, represented by Blair Allen and Kevin Briggs from the Public Defender's office, contended that the smaller jury size infringed upon his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

The Ruling

The court ruled against Damiano, affirming his conviction. The judges referenced existing legal precedents that support the use of six-person juries in certain felony cases. Specifically, the court noted the case of Williams v. Florida, which established that a six-person jury does not violate constitutional rights in non-capital felony cases. The court also cited Serrano-Delgado v. State, reinforcing that the current legal framework permits smaller juries under specific circumstances.

The court stated, "This issue lacks merit under current precedent." The judges emphasized that the legality of a six-person jury in Damiano's case is consistent with established law.

Despite this ruling, the court acknowledged a conflicting decision from the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Kian v. State, which raised questions about the constitutionality of smaller juries in serious felony cases. The court mentioned that the U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the Kian case, indicating that the issue of jury size in felony trials may soon be addressed at the highest level.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for defendants in Florida and potentially across the United States. It reaffirms the legality of six-person juries in certain felony cases, which may affect how future trials are conducted. Defendants like Damiano, who argue for larger juries, may find it challenging to contest their convictions based on jury size alone.

The ongoing debate about jury size and its constitutional implications could lead to further legal challenges, especially with the Kian case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court decides to rule on this matter, it could reshape the landscape of jury trials in felony cases, impacting not only Florida but also other jurisdictions that follow similar precedents.

What's Next

While Damiano's conviction has been upheld, the issue of jury size remains unresolved at the national level. The Kian case is set to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which could lead to a landmark decision affecting jury trial rights across the country. This ongoing legal discourse may prompt further appeals and discussions regarding the adequacy of six-person juries in serious felony cases.