In the case of Apodaca v. Oregon, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to consider whether non-unanimous jury verdicts in criminal cases violated a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial or Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The case arose from three separate instances where defendants were convicted by less than unanimous juries in Oregon and Louisiana state courts. In its 1972 decision, the court held that these convictions did not violate either amendment. The majority opinion argued that while unanimity is required for federal trials under the Sixth Amendment, this requirement does not extend to state trials under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause - thus allowing states like Oregon and Louisiana at that time to continue using non-unanimous juries in most felony cases.

In the dissenting opinion for Apodaca v. Oregon, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts in both federal and state criminal trials. He contended that a non-unanimous verdict dilutes the right of an accused to trial by jury as it allows convictions even if some jurors have reasonable doubts about guilt. Furthermore, he asserted that allowing less than unanimity undermines public confidence in judicial decisions and compromises their reliability and integrity. He also expressed concern over potential racial bias, suggesting that minority voices could be silenced within juries under this system.