IN A GEORGIA OBSCENITY CASE, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT REVERSED A LOWER DECISION, RULING THAT THE 7TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS GUARANTEE A DEFENDANT IN A STATE CASE JURY TRIAL BY MORE THAN FIVE JURORS. PRECEDENTS ARE CITED SHOWING THAT STATE COURTS ARE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS AS FEDERAL COURTS. HOWEVER, THE RULING IN WILLIAMS V. FLORIDA ALLOWING A STATE COURT FREEDOM TO SET JURY SIZE AT FEWER THAN THE TRADITIONAL 12 JURORS HAS MET WITH UNIVERSAL CRITICISM, AS JURY RELIABILITY IS BELIEVED TO INCREASE WITH THE NUMBER OF JURORS. ALTHOUGH DATA CONNECTING JURY SIZE WITH ITS RELIABILITY ARE INCONCLUSIVE, SOME STUDIES INDICATE THAT JURIES OF FIVE OR FEWER MEMBERS ARE LESS LIKELY TO DELIBERATE WELL AS A GROUP OR REPRESENT A CROSS-SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY AND MORE LIKELY TO REACH INACCURATE CONCLUSIONS OR DECISIONS DETRIMENTAL TO DEFENDANTS. IN WILLIAMS V. FLORIDA, THE SUPREME COURT PERMITTED THE STATES TO EXPERIMENT WITH JURY SIZE. NEVERTHELESS, THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS CASE WAS THE NEED FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO ESTABLISH A MINIMUM JURY SIZE FOR THE STATES, SINCE OTHERWISE THE STATES MIGHT HAVE DONE AWAY WITH THE JURY SYSTEM ALTOGETHER. HAD THE WILLIAMS COURT FORESEEN THE COMPLEXITIES OF FUTURE JURY ISSUES, IT MIGHT HAVE SET JURY SIZE AT 12, ONCE AND FOR ALL. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (PAP)