In the case of Patton et al. v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant can waive their right to a trial by jury and instead opt for a bench trial (a trial where the judge alone makes the decision). The court also held that if all parties involved in a case agree, it is constitutional to continue with only 11 jurors after one juror becomes incapacitated during deliberation. This ruling was based on an interpretation of Article III Section 2 Clause 3 and Amendment VI of U.S Constitution which guarantees defendants in criminal cases have rights to public trials by impartial juries but does not explicitly prohibit waiving this right or proceeding with less than twelve jurors under certain circumstances.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Patton et al. v. United States argued that the Constitution's requirement for a trial by jury should be interpreted as requiring a full panel of twelve jurors, and any deviation from this number would violate the defendant's constitutional rights. The dissenters believed that allowing trials to proceed with fewer than twelve jurors could lead to potential abuses and miscarriages of justice, undermining public confidence in the judicial system. They also expressed concern about setting a precedent that might allow further erosion of defendants' rights in future cases.