There are some jurisdictions that use 6 member juries, which is crazy. Some 5-4Supreme Court decisions approved 6 member juries, but found 5 member panels to violate the VI Amendment. There was even a state that had a 6 member jury panel and allowed convictions on 5-1 votes. That was found to be unconstitutional although a few states permit non-unanimous convictions from 12 member panels.

I'm not in favor of any jury with fewer than twelve, which has served humanity for almost 700 years. Twelve member juries were the only type our founding fathers knew, and there is basically nothing to suggest they considered anything else. So the decisions upholding 6 and 8 member panels would reflect that type of judicial activism that the original intent school condemns. Just another example that so called judicial activism isn't limited to liberal agendas.

The bottom line is that some states see the smaller juries as making it easier to convict as it takes only one to hang the jury. Some argued that individual jurors feel more comfortable to share thoughts among 8 rather than 10. I don't buy that at all.