Alvord v. United States was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the indictment was not found by a grand jury. The case involved a man named Alvord who was charged with a crime in the District of Columbia. The indictment was not found by a grand jury, but rather by a single judge. The Supreme Court held that the indictment was valid and that the defendant could be convicted of the crime. The Court reasoned that the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution did not require that indictments be found by a grand jury, but rather that they be found by a “competent tribunal.” The Court found that a single judge was a competent tribunal and that the indictment was valid. The Court also held that the defendant could be convicted of the crime even though the indictment was not found by a grand jury. The Court reasoned that the Fifth Amendment did not require that indictments be found by a grand jury, but rather that they be found by a “competent tribunal.” The Court found that a single judge was a competent tribunal and that the indictment was valid. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the indictment was valid and that the defendant could be convicted of the crime. The Court reasoned that the Fifth Amendment did not require that indictments be found by a grand jury, but rather that they be found by a “competent tribunal.” The Court found that a single judge was a competent tribunal and that the indictment was valid.

In Alvord v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a defendant could be convicted of larceny if they had stolen goods from an Indian reservation. The majority opinion held that the defendant could not be convicted because Congress had not explicitly stated that such acts were illegal on reservations. Justice Field dissented, arguing that it should have been obvious to anyone who committed theft on a reservation that their actions were wrong and punishable by law. He argued further that Congress did not need to specifically state in legislation what constituted criminal behavior; rather, common sense dictated which behaviors were considered unlawful and subject to punishment under existing laws. In conclusion, Justice Field believed there was sufficient evidence for conviction in this case and disagreed with the majority's decision acquitting the defendant of all charges related to his alleged crime on an Indian reservation.