In Andres v. United States, the Supreme Court examined whether a jury must be unanimous in determining that a defendant should receive the death penalty. The case involved an appeal by Josefa Andres who was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death by electrocution. His sentence was based on a 7-5 vote from the jury for capital punishment rather than life imprisonment. The court held that under federal law, juries had to unanimously agree on imposing the death penalty; otherwise, defendants would automatically get life sentences instead. The majority opinion stated that "in cases where there is room for difference of opinion among reasonable men as to which of two penalties should be imposed," unanimity is required before inflicting "the harsher alternative." This decision emphasized fairness in criminal proceedings and underscored how seriously courts take decisions about capital punishment.

In the dissenting opinion for Andres v. United States, Justice Frank Murphy argued that a unanimous verdict should be required to impose the death penalty. He believed that if even one juror had reasonable doubt about whether capital punishment was appropriate, then it should not be imposed. In his view, this requirement would ensure greater fairness and accuracy in sentencing decisions by requiring all jurors to agree on the gravity of imposing such an irreversible sentence as death. Furthermore, he contended that allowing a divided jury to decide life or death matters could lead to arbitrary results and undermine public confidence in the justice system's ability to administer fair punishments.