http://w3.uchastings.edu/plri/spr96tex/jurysiz.html
I found an article from the Public Law Research Institute written by Margo Hunter that discusses the debate over reducing jury size. The people that are in favor of reducing the size from 12 members to anything over 6, argue that money could be saved from the Judicial Budget. Those against the reduction argue that the smaller size wouldn't save a large enough amount of money to make it worth doing.
Those against the reduction also provide research saying that the decreased jury size doesn't give a fair representation of the community. The smaller jury size doesn't have a fair minority representation, either. They also say that the deliberation time for 6 and 12 member juries is about the same amount of time. Research by the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States report that,
"Twelve person juries are more stable and deliberative.
Larger juries were more representative of the interests of minorities than six-person juries.
Although the monetary savings of using smaller juries were significant, these savings were small when compared to the overall judiciary budget.
The reduction in court time from using six-person juries was not that substantial.
As a result of these findings, the Committee concluded that the savings did not compensate for the decrease in stability and the affects on jury community representation."
When considering jury size I do not feel as though money should be an issue. If you are convicted someone of murder or even a less office if it is important enough to have a trial with a jury then the number of jurors should be the amount of people that represent a community best. In a small town of Iowa is there is a trial 6 jurors may be enough. But if you are in Chicago, LA, or New York I feel as thought 6 jurors is not a good representation of how the city/town views and decision would be. Therefore, when deciding on how many people are determining the outcome of a case should not depend on how much money the city would save if they decreased the amount of people.
I'm personally glad they did not decide to reduce the jury size. There are enough people who are wrongly convicted as it is and I think that a smaller jury size could just increase those numbers. I don't think that money or time saved should be considered when deciding to reduce jury size. Jury's are suppose to represent the population, so the more people on a jury the more likely that jury is going to represent the population. The 12 person jury also dates back to English common law. If it has been in existence for that long and has done a good job of serving its purpose then I don't see any reason to mess with it. Even though research has found some good points to a six person jury there are also some bad points too. Research has found that 12 person juries are more stable and deliberative than six person juries. Something should not be changed just because it might save a little money or time if it is going to cause a jury to become less stable.