In the 1926 case of Brasfield et al. v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for a trial judge to inquire about the numerical division of a jury in terms of their votes during deliberations. The defendant, Brasfield, had been convicted for moonshining and his appeal argued that this inquiry by the trial judge pressured jurors into reaching a verdict and thus violated his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury trial. The Supreme Court agreed with this argument stating such inquiries can be seen as coercion which could potentially influence or pressure jurors into changing their vote just to reach a unanimous decision rather than based on their understanding and interpretation of evidence presented at trial.

In the dissenting opinion for Brasfield et al. v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, argued that there was no constitutional violation in a judge asking a jury about the numerical division of their vote during deliberations. He contended that such an inquiry did not amount to coercion or interference with the jury's independence and impartiality as long as it was done without any intent to influence their decision-making process. The majority held this practice unconstitutional because they believed it could potentially pressure jurors into reaching a verdict prematurely or against their better judgment due to fear of disappointing the court or public opinion if they were unable to agree unanimously after revealing how close they were to doing so. However, Holmes disagreed with this interpretation and felt that judges should have discretion in managing trials according to what best serves justice within legal limits.