Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Clifton Bean, Petitioner v. Florida

No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

—————————————————

CLIFTON BEAN, PETITIONER

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT.

———————

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SECOND DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

———————————————

PETITIONER FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

———————————————

Daniel Wehking, Esq.

Counsel of Record

24 Wooster Heights Dr.

Ridgefield, CT 06877

(321) 765-3115

attorneywehking@gmail.com

QUESTION PRESENTED

Does the Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to a trial

by a twelve person jury when the defendant is charged with a felony that requires a

life sentence without the possibility of parole if convicted?

i

RELATED PROCEEDINGS

The proceeding listed below is directly related to the above-captioned case in

this Court

Bean v. State, No. 2D2023-0450 (Fla. 2nd D.C.A. July 16, 2024).

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Question Presented …………………………………………………………………….

i

Related Proceedings ……………………………………………………………………

ii

Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………….

iii

Index to the Appendix …………………………………………………………………. iv

Table of Authorities …………………………………………………………………….

v

Opinion Below …………………………………………………………………………... 2

Jurisdiction ……………………………………………………………………………… 2

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions …………………………………………… 2

Statement of the Case …………………………………………………………………. 3

Reasons for Granting the Petition …………………………………………………… 4

WILLIAMS IS NO LONGER GOOD LAW AND A JURY OF TWELVE IS

REQUIRED TO SENTENCE A DEFENDANT TO LIFE WITHOUT THE

POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE …………………………………………………………..

4

Common Law and Treatises ………………………………………………………….. 5

State Practices in the Founding Era ……………………………………………...… 6

Ramos Overrules Williams ……………………………………………………………

8

Overruling Williams …………………………………………………………………… 10

Death in Prison is Different …………………………………………………………..

15

Summary ………………………………………………………………………………… 16

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………….

iii

17

INDEX TO THE APPENDIX

District Court Opinion ………………………………………………………………….. A2

District Court Mandate…………………………………………………………………. A3

Order Denying Motion for Rehearing and Motion to Certify A

Question of Great Public Importance…………………………………………………. A5

Judgment and Sentence………………………………………………………..……….. A6

Initial Brief (Redacted)............................................................................................ A12

Motion for Rehearing and Motion to Certify A

Question of Great Public Importance…………………………………………………. A24

iv

Case

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page No.

Ballew v. Georgia,

435 US 223 (1978)............................................................................ 9, 11-12

Blum v. Dowell Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals,

534 Pa. 97 (Pa. 1993)................................................................................... 6

Claudio v. State,

585 A. 2d 1278 (Del. 1991).......................................................................... 6

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization,

142 S.Ct. 2228 (2022)............................................................................. 9-10

Edwards v. Vannoy,

593 US 255 (2021)..................................................................................... 14

Graham v. Florida,

130 S.Ct. 2011 (2010)................................................................................ 15

Guzman v. State,

350 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)....................................................... 8, 14

Harmelin v. Michigan,

501 U.S. 957 (1991)................................................................................... 15

Holmes v. Walton

Predates case numbering (NJ 1780).......................................................... 6

Khorrami v. Arizona,

143 S. Ct. 22 at 23 (2022)............................................................................ 9

Morales-Alaffita v. State,

376 So. 3d 791 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2023)..................................................... 8, 14

Opinion of the Justices,

41 N.H. 550 (N.H. 1860).............................................................................. 7

Opinions of the Justices,

121 N.H. 480 (N.H. 1981)............................................................................ 7

Opinion to Senate,

278 A. 2d 852 (R.I. 1971)............................................................................. 8

v

People v. Gajadhar,

9 N.Y.3d 438 (N.Y. App. 2007)... 7-8

Ramos v. Louisiana,

590 U.S. 83 (2020)............................................................................. 3-5, 8-9

Thompson v. Utah,

170 US 343 (1898).................................................................................. 9, 14

Williams v. Florida,

399 U.S. 78 (1970)............................................................................. 8-14, 16

U.S. Constitution

Page No.

Sixth Amendment……………………………………………………… 2-4, 7, 9, 11, 16

Fourteenth Amendment……………………………………………………………... 2-4

Statutes

Page No.

Arizona Statutes

§21-102……………………………………………………………………... 15-16

Connecticut Statutes

§54-82……………………………………………………………………………. 16

Florida Statutes

§775.082…………………………………………………………………………... 4

§794.011…………………………………………………………………………... 4

Indiana Code

§35-37-1-1……………………………………………………………………….. 16

§35-50-2-7……………………………………………………………………….. 16

Massachusetts General Law

Part III Title I Chapter 218 Section 26……………………………………. 16

Part III Title I Chapter 218 Section 26A………………………………….. 16

Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 20…………………………………………………………………………… 16

Utah Code

§78B-1-104………………………………………………………………………. 15

vi

State Constitutions

Delaware (1776)..................................................................................................... 6

Maryland (1776)..................................................................................................... 7

Virginia (1776)........................................................................................................ 7

Other Authorities

Page No.

Aimonetti, Justin W.

Holmes v. Walton and its Enduring Lessons for Originalism,

106 Marq. L. Rev. 73 (2022)..................................................................... 6-7

Blackstone, William

Commentaries on the Laws of England (1769)........................................... 5

Boyce, Erica J.

Time to Reflect, Has the research changed regarding the

importance of jury size?,

https://www.ncsc-jurystudies.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/

71619/Jury-Size-Report.pdf (2021)...................................................... 12-13

Pabst, William R.

Statistical Studies of the Costs of Six-Man versus Twelve-Man Juries,

14 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 326 (1972)........................................................... 12

Thayer, James Bradley

A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law (1898).............. 5

vii

No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

—————————————————

CLIFTON BEAN, PETITIONER

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT.

———————

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SECOND DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

———————————————

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

———————————————

Clifton Bean respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the

judgment in this case of the Second District Court of Appeal of Florida.

1

OPINION BELOW

The opinion of Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal is not yet reported by

West, but is available on the District Court’s website, Google Scholar, and is

represented in the appendix. A2.

JURISDICTION

Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal affirmed Bean’s conviction and

sentence with the mandate issued on July 16, 2024. A3. This Court has jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS

The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides: “In all

criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial

by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been

committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be

informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the

witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his

favor and to have Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

provides: “[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property

without due process of law…”

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner, Clifton Bean, was sentenced to die in prison after being convicted

of sex offenses by a six person jury. A6-A11. He appealed to the Second District

Court of Appeal of Florida. Relying on Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020), he

argued that he was entitled under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to a

twelve person jury. A12-A23. The District Court rejected his argument without

explanation, issuing a per curiam affirmed decision. A2. The Second District Court

of Appeal denied Mr. Bean’s Motion to Certify a Question of Great Public

Importance which would have allowed the Florida Supreme Court to review the

issue. A5. The Second District Court of Appeal is the state court of last resort for

this case.

3

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

WILLIAMS IS NO LONGER GOOD LAW AND A JURY OF TWELVE

IS REQUIRED TO SENTENCE A DEFENDANT TO LIFE WITHOUT

THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE

When the six members of the jury in this case found Mr. Bean guilty of sexual

battery upon a child less than 12 years of age, unbeknownst to them they had

condemned Mr. Bean to die in prison. Florida law requires a mandatory sentence of

prison until death with no chance of parole for his charges. Florida Statutes

794.011 & 775.082. The United States Constitution as interpreted by this Court in

Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020), requires a jury of no less than twelve

members to determine the outcome of criminal cases. Under the Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Mr. Bean was entitled to a jury of

twelve to determine guilt in his case. The failure to provide a twelve member jury

to Mr. Bean necessitates a reversal of all convictions and a remand to the trial court

for a new trial before a sufficient jury.

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants criminal defendants

the right to a trial by an impartial jury. This Court held the “text and structure of

the Constitution clearly suggest that the term ‘trial by an impartial jury’ carried

with it some meaning about the content and requirements of a jury trial.” Ramos at

1395. This Court held that the phrase “trial by an impartial jury” should carry the

meaning it would at the time of the Sixth Amendment’s adoption. Id. While this

Court in Ramos was examining the Sixth Amendment’s application to the

4

requirement of unanimous juries, the same analysis should apply to what a “trial by

an impartial jury” means in all respects.

This Court looked at common law, state practices in the founding era, and

opinions and treatises written soon afterward. These same sources of meaning all

lead to the same conclusion: a trial by an impartial jury requires a jury of at least

twelve.

Common Law and Treatises

Common law requires a twelve person jury. The guiding commentary the

Court used in Ramos, William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England,

confirms this. This Court quoted Blackstone when he wrote "the truth of every

accusation... should ... be confirmed by the unanimous suffrage of twelve of his

equals and neighbors, indifferently chosen, and superior to all suspicion." 4 W.

Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 343 (1769). This Court also

quoted Professor James Bradley Thayer’s A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the

Common Law, when it noted a “verdict, taken from eleven, was no verdict” at all.

Thayer 88-89, n. 4 (quoting Anonymous Case, 41 Lib. Assisarum 11 (1367)). It is

clear that common law held a twelve person jury to be the minimum size required to

take someone’s liberty. It is clear that the common law and treatises written near

the time the Constitution was ratified support the assertion that the Founders

expected juries to consist of twelve members. A review of state law from the time

will show the same.

5

State Practices in the Founding Era

Analysis of the understanding in the states near the time the Constitution

was adopted shows the same understanding across the young nation. The states

understood a jury needed twelve members.

Delaware’s first constitution was written in 1776. More recently Delaware’s

supreme court found “All of the fundamental features of the right to trial by jury, as

they existed at common law, have been preserved by the Delaware Constitution.”

Claudio v. State, 585 A. 2d 1278 at 1301 (Del. 1991). “It has also been expressly

recognized that the Delaware Constitution guarantees the common law right to a

trial by a jury of twelve persons in a criminal proceeding.” Id.

In Pennsylvania, the right to a jury of twelve had been understood and

guaranteed to its people for over 200 hundred years according to their supreme

court when that court addressed the issue in 1993. Blum v. Dowell Merrill Dow

Pharmaceuticals, 534 Pa. 97 at 119 (Pa. 1993). Pennsylvania’s supreme court found

that “because of Pennsylvania's history and case law, a jury must be composed of

twelve persons where that right existed at common law”. Id.

In New Jersey in 1780, the state supreme court engaged in what is frequently

cited as the first instance of judicial review in the case of Holmes v. Walton.1 When

the legislature attempted to institute a jury of six in some crimes, the New Jersey

Supreme Court ruled that such a change would violate the state’s constitution.

1

Holmes v. Walton has been commented on for centuries, but predates modern court opinion

practices and has no citation or written record of the decision pronounced.

6

Justin W. Aimonetti, Holmes v. Walton and its Enduring Lessons for Originalism,

106 Marq. L. Rev. 73 (2022). The state’s constitution, adopted in 1776, stated only

“that the inestimable Right of Trial by Jury shall remain confirmed, as a Part of the

Law of this Colony without Repeal for ever.” The Holmes Court knew that the right

to jury meant the right to a jury of twelve.

Maryland adopted the common law expectations of juries in their 1776

constitution. Section III of that constitution held that “the inhabitants of Maryland

are entitled to the common law of England, and the trial by Jury, according to that

law”. As previously discussed, common law required a jury of no less than twelve.

In Opinion of the Justices, 41 N.H. 550 at 552 (N.H. 1860), the same opinion

from the New Hampshire this Court quoted in Ramos, the court held that under

New Hampshire law the meaning of the phrase “trial by jury” at the time the state

constitution was adopted required no less than twelve members on any jury. The

New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed this position again in Opinions of the

Justices, 121 N.H. 480 (N.H. 1981).

Virginia enshrined the right to a twelve person jury in their 1776 Declaration

of Rights. Section 8 of that Declaration of Rights states “That in all capital or

criminal prosecutions a man has a right to… a speedy trial by an impartial jury of

twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found

guilty”.

New York viewed a jury as requiring twelve members when the Sixth

Amendment was ratified. In People v. Gajadhar, 9 N.Y.3d 438 at 442 (N.Y. App.

7

2007), the court recognized that the “common-law tradition of a 12-person jury was

exported to America in the colonial era and gained explicit recognition in the

original Charter of Liberties and Privileges enacted by the first Legislature in

1683”. It went on to recognize that upon adopting its first constitution, that

although “the constitution of 1777 did not specifically refer to the number 12, it

provided that the right to a jury trial as it existed in New York before the adoption

of the constitution was to be continued”. Id.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court noted multiple instances of twelve person

jury requirements early in the state’s history when they reviewed that history in

Opinion to Senate, 278 A. 2d 852 (R.I. 1971). In the mid-1600s their general

assembly required all juries to be composed of twelve men. Id. at 856. The court

found that from the earliest days of the colony to when the state adopted its first

constitution in 1842, various acts of the legislature showed “an unwavering

adherence to a petit jury composed of twelve persons”. Id. When their constitution

was adopted in 1842 “a trial by jury was synonymous with a trial by a jury of

twelve.” Id. at 857.

Ramos Overrules Williams

Florida courts have relied on Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970) to deny

requests for twelve person juries in the wake of Ramos.2 It is clear from the

language of Ramos that the permission to try criminal cases with a six person jury

2

See Guzman v. State, 350 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022), Morales-Alaffita v. State, 376 So. 3d 791

(Fla. 2nd DCA 2023)

8

is no longer granted. The U.S. Supreme Court will not entertain stare decisis for a

case that was “egregiously wrong from the start.” Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health

Organization, 142 S.Ct. 2228 at 2243 (2022). As Justice Gorsuch states, “Williams

was wrong the day it was decided, it remains wrong today, and it impairs both the

integrity of the American criminal justice system and the liberties of those who

come before our Nation's courts.” Khorrami v. Arizona, 143 S. Ct. 22 at 23 (2022).

In 1898, Utah attempted to retry a defendant charged with a felony with a

jury of eight after a mistrial with a jury of twelve. This Court found this

unconstitutional and that “the jury referred to in the original Constitution and in

the Sixth Amendment is a jury constituted, as it was at common law, of twelve

persons”. Thompson v. Utah, 170 US 343 at 349 (1898). The Supreme Court held in

Thompson that twelve was the required number of jurors under the Constitution.

This was the Court’s position until overruling Thompson in Williams.

Williams relied on questionable and recent social science, rather than the intent of

the authors of the Constitution, to support their contention that six jurors made no

difference compared to twelve jurors. In Ballew v. Georgia, 435 US 223 (1978), this

Court reexamined social science, particularly that which was spawned in reaction to

Williams, and found that the size of the jury was important. “Generally, a positive

correlation exists between group size and the quality of both group performance and

group productivity.” Ballew at 232. What social scientists have said on the issue in

1970, 1978, and 2024 does not matter. The philosophy of Ramos requires courts to

9

ignore the social science of the day and rely solely on the words written in the

Constitution and what the writers meant when they were written.

Justice Thomas notes in his concurrence in Ramos that the majority in that

case undertakes a “fresh analysis of the meaning of ‘trial…by an impartial jury’”.

Ramos at 1421. As the majority in Ramos has taken a fresh look at what an

impartial jury is, it is now Ramos that stands as the governing law in this area. All

decisions that conflict with Ramos’s interpretation of how to read the Constitution

when it comes to an impartial jury were overturned by that decision. Florida courts

have refused to recognize that truth unless they hear it directly from this Court.

Mr. Bean respectfully requests this Court now explain as much to the courts of

Florida.

Overruling Williams

Mr. Bean argues that Williams was overruled with the decision in Ramos.

Courts in Florida have disagreed. Should this Court share the belief that Williams

has not yet been overruled, it should formally overrule Williams now. This Court

recognized factors to be considered when deciding if a precedent should be overruled

in Dobbs. Mr. Bean will now address each factor.

The nature of the Court’s error. Williams was flagrantly incorrect when it was

decided and remains so today. The State of Florida filed 156,007 cases involving

felony charges in just the 2022-2023 fiscal year.3 All but those charged with a crime

3

Trial Court Statistical Reference Guide, Overall Statistics, p.2-3

“https://www.flcourts.gov/Publications-Statistics/Statistics/Trial-Court-Statistical-Reference-Guide”

10

in which the death penalty was at issue were provided a jury of six if the case went

to trial.4 Millions of cases in Florida alone have been resolved or tried with only a

jury of six to protect the accused from the powers of the government as a result of

the Williams ruling.

The quality of the reasoning. Williams failed to look at the plain meaning of

what a jury was for those who wrote the Sixth Amendment. Williams instead

substituted poor social science which has been rebuked.

Williams attempted to suggest that because the Sixth Amendment made no

provision for judicial districts and instead left those determinations to Congress

that the meaning of a jury trial in 1791 to those that ratified the amendment no

longer mattered. Williams specifies that unanimity was left out of the amendment

and thus no longer required for conviction, an interpretation we know from Ramos

to be incorrect.

Williams abandoned the idea of applying the 1791 understanding of the word

jury. Instead, the Court decided the inquiry “must be the function that the

particular feature performs and its relation to the purposes of the jury trial”.

Williams at 99. The Court in Bellew recognized

“recent empirical data suggest that progressively smaller juries are less likely

to foster effective group deliberation. At some point, this decline leads to

inaccurate fact-finding and incorrect application of the common sense of the

community to the facts. Generally, a positive correlation exists between group

4

See Morales-Alaffita v. State, 376 So. 3d 791 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2023).

11

size and the quality of both group performance and group productivity.”

Bellew at 232.

Despite this recognition, the Bellew Court failed to give weight to the studies they

cited which found a smaller jury size increased the rate of conviction, limiting the

decision to the issue of five jurors, as Georgia was using, being insufficient. In

Pabst, Statistical Studies of the Costs of Six-Man versus Twelve-Man Juries, 14 Wm.

& Mary L. Rev. 326 (1972), Pabst noted,

“using traditional binomial sampling theory, David Walbert has concluded

that the probability of conviction with the six-man jury may be higher for

‘weak’ cases than for ‘strong’ cases. Herbert Friedman also used sampling

operating characteristic curves to show the effects which may result from a

reduction in jury size as well as from the lessening of the unanimity

requirement. Moreover, in bitterly opposing the reduction, Hans Zeisel has

noted critically the probability that fewer minority groups will be included on

the six-man jury.”

Studies contradicting the ones used in Williams have long been present, but this

Court has not recognized that these studies alone make the holding of Williams

false.

In 2021, the National Center for State Courts compiled studies that

examined the differences between 6 and 12 member juries. Boyce, Time to Reflect,

Has the research changed regarding the importance of jury size?

https://www.ncsc-jurystudies.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/71619/Jury-Size-Report

12

.pdf (2021). Smaller juries have greater variability and are more unpredictable.

Larger juries were able to recall more of the evidence. Larger juries increase the

likelihood of having more than one person in the minority of opinion and having

more than one person in the minority of opinion makes them both less likely to

conform to the majority. Larger panels encompass more diverse viewpoints. Some

researchers concluded larger juries led to more accurate verdicts because they are

more likely to remember evidence and more likely to have a thorough debate on the

merits of the case. Larger juries increase the chances of a racial minority being on

the jury which is of particular note in this case where Mr. Bean, a Black man,

objected to the lack of racial minorities on his jury. All white juries convicted Black

defendants significantly more than white defendants but there is no difference in

conviction rates based on race when there is even one Black person on the jury.

Workability. From an ease of application perspective, Williams and Bellew

provide a bright-line rule that is easy to follow: juries must have at least six

members when the death penalty is not an issue. The ease of application is part of

the problem in that the National Center for State Courts reports four states lowered

their jury size for felony cases after Williams. Time to Reflect, p. 2. Correcting the

error by returning to a twelve person jury will have the same ease of application

with a corrected bright-line rule imposed.

Effect on other areas of law. Correcting the mistake of Williams will clarify

the expectations of Constitutional analysis and bring expectations in line with

current values expressed by this Court. Ramos expressed a clear vision of how the

13

Constitution will be interpreted: words and phrases will have the meaning they did

to the people that made them part of the Constitution. That clear and obvious way

of interpreting the Constitution on any issue is undercut when all someone needs to

do to argue against it is point to the Williams case to suggest an alternate

interpretation. This is exactly what courts in Florida have done in holding that this

Court continues to respect the holding in Williams because this Court does not

normally overturn authority sub silentio. Guzman at 72; Morales-Alaffita at 793.

Reliance interests. There are no reliance interests at stake in restoring the

rule to that of Thompson and having it match the rule in Ramos. There can be no

legitimate interest by the government in denying individuals a fundamental right

as found in the Constitution. This Court found that Ramos did not apply

retroactively to any cases that were no longer pending.5 It should be expected the

same analysis would apply to jury size and that overruling Williams would not be

retroactive. Any state that relied on Williams in determining jury size will not have

to relitigate cases in which an inadequate jury convicted a defendant and direct

appeal has been completed.

These factors favor overturning Williams and restoring the rule of Thompson.

5

See Edwards v. Vannoy, 593 US 255 (2021)

14

Death in Prison is Different

Mr. Bean is sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Mr.

Bean invites the Court to decide this case on the narrow question of whether twelve

person juries are required when such a sentence is at stake.

All states that utilize the death penalty require a jury of twelve to convict

and to determine aggravating factors in capital cases. Because of the severity of the

punishment, Mr. Bean argues that there has always been a Constitutional mandate

to have a jury of twelve in a death penalty case. This Court has never needed to

address that argument because all states require twelve jurors in cases in which the

death penalty may be imposed.

Life without parole is "the second most severe penalty permitted by law."

Graham v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2011 at 2027 (2010) quoting Harmelin v. Michigan,

501 U.S. 957 at 996 (1991). Florida stands alone in permitting six person juries to

determine guilt when life in prison is a possible outcome. All other states recognize

a six person jury is insufficient to even handle what this Court called the “third

most severe” sentence, life with the possibility of parole. Harmelin at 996. The five

other states that do not use twelve person juries for all criminal cases, Arizona,

Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, and Utah, all require more than six jurors on

cases where life in prison is on the line. Utah is the only other state to allow less

than twelve jurors to decide such a case. Utah requires eight jurors on all

non-capital felony cases. Utah Code 78B-1-104. Arizona requires twelve jurors for

any case that may be punishable by 30 years or more in prison. Arizona Statutes

15

21-102. Connecticut requires twelve jurors for any crime that may be punished by

life in prison, regardless of if parole is a possibility. Connecticut Statutes 54-82.

Indiana requires twelve jurors for all but their least serious level of felonies which

carry a maximum of three and a half years in prison. Indiana Code 35-37-1-1 &

35-50-2-7. Massachusetts requires twelve jurors for all but their least serious level

of felonies, those which carry a maximum of five years in prison. Massachusetts

Part III Title I Chapter 218 Section 26 & 26A & Massachusetts Rule of Criminal

Procedure 20. Forty-eight states recognize what Mr. Bean now asks this Court to

make clear, a case in which the government seeks a mandatory life sentence

without parole requires a jury of twelve to convict.

Summary

Williams was wrong in 1970, was recognized as wrong in 2020, and is wrong

today. The fundamental right to a trial by jury in the Sixth Amendment means

today what it meant in 1791: a decision rendered by a unanimous jury of twelve.

Mr. Bean respectfully requests that his case be reversed and remanded for a trial

with twelve jurors as is his fundamental right.

16

CONCLUSION

The petition for writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

DANIEL WEHKING

24 Wooster Heights Drive

Ridgefield, CT 06877

(321) 765-3115

attorneywehking@gmail.com

Daniel Wehking

Counsel of Record

September 11, 2024

17