IN BALLEW V GEORGIA, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT A STATE CRIMINAL TRIAL BY JURY OF ONLY 5 PERSONS DEPRIVED THE ACCUSED OF THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY GUARANTEED BY THE 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS. THE COURT FOUND NO OVERRIDING STATE INTEREST SUFFICIENT TO OFFSET THE THREAT TO CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES THAT WOULD RESULT FROM A REDUCTION OF JURY SIZE FROM SIX TO FIVE. BALLEW THUS ESTABLISHES THAT A CONSTITUTIONALLY ADEQUATE STATE CRIMINAL JURY CAN BE COMPOSED OF NO FEWER THAN SIX MEMBERS. TWO PRIOR DECISIONS ESTABLISHED THE FOUNDATION FOR BALLEW. IN DUNCAN V LOUISIANA, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), THE COURT HELD THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT INCORPORATED THE 6TH AMENDMENT'S RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY AND MADE IT APPLICABLE AGAINST STATES. FURTHERMORE, IN WILLIAMS V FLORIDA, 399 U.S. 78 (1970), THE COURT HELD THAT A SIX MEMBER JURY WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF TRIAL BY JURY IN STATE CRIMINAL CASES. IN THE WILLIAMS CASE, THE COURT FIRST DESCRIBED THE WAY IN WHICH A JURY MUST FUNCTION TO FULFILL ITS PURPOSE. THEN, APPLYING THIS FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS, IT DEFINED THE FEATURES OF A JURY REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION AS THOSE NECESSARY FOR THE JURY TO SERVE ITS PURPOSE. THIS ANALYSIS ENABLED THE COURT TO CONSTRUCT THE TEST OF SUFFICIENT JURY SIZE WHICH IT APLIED IN WILLIAMS AND AGAIN IN BALLEW. FOOTNOTES PROVIDED. (LWM)