In the case of Territory of Guam v. Olsen, 1976, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a provision in the Organic Act of Guam that allowed for non-jury trials in local cases violated the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. The defendant, Olsen, had been convicted in a bench trial (a trial without a jury) and argued this denied him his constitutional rights. However, the court ruled against Olsen with Justice William Rehnquist writing for majority opinion. It held that while certain parts of US Constitution were applicable to territories like Guam through an act known as "incorporation," not all provisions were extended automatically including right to jury trials under Sixth Amendment. This decision affirmed Congress's power over territorial affairs and clarified limits on application of Bill Rights within those areas.

In the dissenting opinion for Territory of Guam v. Olsen, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a statute which allowed non-unanimous jury verdicts in criminal cases violated the defendant's constitutional rights. The dissent contended that such a law contradicted both historical precedent and fundamental principles of justice, as it undermined the role of juries in protecting individuals from unjust prosecutions. It was also pointed out that this ruling could potentially lead to unfair trials and wrongful convictions due to its allowance for less rigorous deliberation standards among jurors. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view on incorporation doctrine application regarding territories like Guam; they believed Bill of Rights protections should fully extend there too.