The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Louisiana law that allowed less-than unanimous jury verdicts (9 to 12 jurors) to convict persons charged with a felony, does not violate the Due Process clause.

At that time, the Louisiana State Constitution and Code of Criminal Procedure[2] allowed for a less-than-unanimous jury to convict a defendant of a crime where hard labor is available as punishment.

However, the vast majority of the jury agreeing to convict the man was sufficient and their decision is not merely invalidated by the dissenting minority, thereby quashing the "reasonable doubt approach" to this case.

Justice Blackmun's concurrence highlights him affirming the court decision that the verdict given by the jury is valid, however, he clarifies that he is not in favor of a split-verdict system.

Justice Powell concurred with the majority that the less-than-unanimous ruling "undercuts the applicable standard of proof in criminal prosecutions in that State."

He also rejected the equal protection clause argument based on the fact the state did not discriminate different tiers of defendant as they have a rational basis to do so.

He wrote: It therefore seems to me, in accord both with history and precedent, that the Sixth Amendment requires a unanimous jury verdict to convict in a federal criminal trial.

This Court has said, in cases decided when the intendment of that Amendment was not as clouded by the passage of time, that due process does not require that the States apply the federal jury-trial right with all its gloss.Justice Douglas dissent that is joined by both justice Brennan and Marshall regards the majority opinion as a "radical departure from American traditions".

It provides the simple and effective method endorsed by centuries of experience and history to combat the injuries to the fair administration of justice that can be inflicted by community passion and prejudice.Justice Marshall dissent that is joined by Justice Brennan, states that the very fact that a minority of 3 juror not agreeing with the others in regard to the case meant that they were unsuccessfully persuaded by the state, which showed a reasonable doubt.