In a recent ruling, the District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed a decision regarding the size of juries in criminal cases. The court addressed the appeal of Jacquelin Alexandra Coppus Mullins, who challenged her conviction for trespassing on the grounds that she was entitled to a twelve-person jury. This ruling affects how jury sizes are determined in Florida, particularly in noncapital cases.
The case, Mullins v. State of Florida, was filed under docket number 2D2025-0655 and was decided on September 9, 2026. Mullins was convicted of trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance. She raised several arguments in her appeal, including claims of error related to hearsay objections and sentencing. However, her most significant argument concerned the size of the jury that convicted her.
Mullins argued that her conviction by a six-person jury violated her rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. She contended that she should have been entitled to a twelve-person jury, which is the standard in many other jurisdictions. However, she did not object to the six-person jury during her trial, which limited the court's review of her claim.
The court noted that Florida law allows for six-person juries in noncapital criminal cases. According to Judge Labrit, "Florida law provides for twelve jurors in capital cases and six jurors in all other criminal cases." The court referenced the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Williams v. Florida, which upheld the constitutionality of six-person juries, stating that it does not violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Furthermore, the court emphasized that Mullins's argument was premature. She suggested that the Supreme Court might overrule the Williams decision in a pending case, Kian v. Florida. However, the court clarified that until the Supreme Court makes a definitive ruling, they are bound to follow existing precedent. Judge Labrit stated, "Unless and until the Supreme Court overrules Williams, we must follow it." This reinforces the legal principle that lower courts must adhere to established rulings until higher courts decide otherwise.
The court ultimately affirmed Mullins's conviction, stating that the trial court acted within the law. They concluded that there was no error in using a six-person jury for her case, and thus her appeal was denied. Judges Morris and Smith concurred with the ruling.
This decision has implications for future cases in Florida. It confirms that the use of six-person juries in noncapital cases remains valid under state law and U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Defendants in similar situations may find it challenging to argue for larger juries unless there is a change in the law or a new ruling from the Supreme Court.
As for what’s next, it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will address the issue in Kian v. Florida. If they do, the outcome could potentially alter the landscape of jury sizes in Florida and beyond. For now, the ruling in Mullins v. State serves as a reminder of the current legal standards regarding jury composition in the state.