Branch 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 failed to allege the essential elements of the offense. The case involved a defendant, Branch, who was charged with the crime of embezzlement. The indictment failed to allege the essential elements of the offense, such as the fact that the defendant had taken the money with the intent to defraud. The Supreme Court held that the indictment was insufficient to support a conviction. The Court reasoned that an indictment must allege all of the essential elements of the offense in order to be valid. The Court noted that the indictment in this case failed to allege the essential element of intent to defraud, and thus, the conviction could not stand. The Court's decision in Branch v. United States established the principle that an indictment must allege all of the essential elements of the offense in order to be valid. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and has become an important part of criminal law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Branch v. United States, arguing that the majority had misinterpreted and misapplied the law to reach its conclusion. He argued that Congress did not intend for a person who was convicted of an offense against one state to be tried again by another state for the same offense. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being subjected to multiple prosecutions or punishments for a single crime, and Justice Field believed this protection should extend beyond federal courts into those of individual states as well. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress intended otherwise it would have made such provisions clear in their legislation rather than leaving it up to interpretation by judges. In his view, allowing double jeopardy within different states would lead to confusion among citizens regarding which laws applied where and could potentially result in unfair convictions due to lack of knowledge about applicable laws or procedural rules at each jurisdiction level.