THE DECISIONS ANALYZED ARE WILLIAMS V. FLORIDA (1970), IN WHICH THE COURT HELD THAT JURIES COMPOSED OF FEWER THAN TWELVE JURORS ARE PERMISSIBLE IN THE TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES IN STATE COURTS; JOHNSON V. LOUISIANA (1972) AND APODACA V. OREGON (1972) THE COURT DECIDED THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT DEMAND THAT VERDICTS IN STATE CRIMINAL CASES BE REACHED BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF ALL JURORS. THE JUDICIAL ANTECEDENTS OF THESE DECISION, AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS THEMSELVES, ARE REVIEWED. CHANGES IN THE UNANIMITY AND JUROR NUMBER REQUIREMENTS MADE AND/OR ATTEMPTED IN BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS ARE SUMMARIZED AND A CRITICAL APPRAISAL IS MADE OF THE JOHNSON AND APODACA DECISIONS. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT ALTHOUGH A FEW STATES HAVE MOVED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED JURORS, NONE HAS AGREED TO ACCEPT LESS THAN UNANIMOUS VERDICTS IN CIVIL OR CRIMINAL CASES. THE AUTHORS CONTEND THAT, WHEN ALL FACTORS ARE CONSIDERED TOGETHER - THE LACK OF STANDARDS ON THE CONSTITUTIONALLY APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF JURORS NEEDED TO CONVICT, THE QUESTION OF FULL DELIBERATION OF ALL JURORS ON THE EVIDENCE, THE NEED TO CONVICT ACCUSED PERSONS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, AND MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN JURY DECISIONS - THE JOHNSON AND APODACA DECISIONS APPEAR TO BE GIGANTIC STEPS BACKWARD.