In his plurality opinion, Justice Byron White, joined by Chief Justice Burger, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Rehnquist, held that the Sixth Amendment did not mandate unanimity in jury verdicts, thereby upholding Oregon’s practice of allowing non-unanimous jury verdicts in felony cases. White first referenced the Court’s decision in Williams v. Florida (1970), which held that the Sixth Amendment did not require a twelve-member jury. White argued that similar to the twelve-member requirement, the unanimity rule was not essential to the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a fair trial. He emphasized that the purpose of the jury trial was to interpose the common sense judgment of a group of laymen between the accused and the accuser, which does not necessarily require unanimity.

White examined the historical context of the unanimity rule, noting its development during the Middle Ages and its acceptance in common law by the 18th century. However, he argued that the history of the Sixth Amendment indicated that the Framers did not intend to include all common-law features of the jury system. He pointed out that the original proposal for the Amendment included a unanimity requirement, but this was ultimately rejected by Congress. Addressing the argument that unanimity was necessary to uphold the reasonable doubt standard, White noted that the Sixth Amendment had never been held to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He highlighted that the reasonable doubt standard developed separately from the jury trial and unanimity requirements and therefore, he found no constitutional basis for linking the unanimity rule to the reasonable doubt standard. White ultimately concluded that the essential functions of a jury trial could be achieved without requiring unanimity, so Oregon’s law did not violate the Constitution.