Pray v. United States was a Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the jury was not unanimous in its verdict. The case involved a man named John Pray, who was charged with the crime of embezzlement. Pray argued that the jury's verdict was not unanimous, as one of the jurors had voted against conviction. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the United States, holding that a jury's verdict does not need to be unanimous in order to convict a defendant. The Court reasoned that the unanimity requirement was not necessary to ensure a fair trial, as the jury's decision was still based on the evidence presented and the instructions given by the judge. Furthermore, the Court noted that the unanimity requirement was not a constitutional right, and that it was up to the states to decide whether or not to require unanimity in criminal cases. As a result, the Court held that Pray could be convicted of the crime of embezzlement despite the lack of unanimity in the jury's verdict.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in PRAY v. UNITED STATES, arguing that the majority had erred in their interpretation of a contract between Pray and the United States government. The contract was for Pray to construct certain buildings on an Indian reservation, with payment contingent upon completion of those buildings according to specifications laid out by Congress. The majority found that because some of these specifications were not met, no payment could be made; however Justice Field argued that this interpretation did not take into account other provisions within the agreement which allowed for partial payments if only part of the work was completed satisfactorily. He further noted that even if all conditions were not satisfied as specified by Congress, it would still be reasonable to make a partial payment based on what had been accomplished thus far under terms agreed upon by both parties at inception of said contract. As such he concluded his dissent stating “I am unable to concur with my brethren in holding…that there is no room here for any exercise whatever either of legal or equitable discretion” and urged reversal so as to allow consideration for making at least a partial payment due under terms already established between Pray and United States Government