In Coffey v. United States, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a federal statute that allowed the government to seize and sell a vessel and its cargo without a jury trial. The petitioner, Coffey, argued that the statute violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial in criminal cases. The Supreme Court held that the statute was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the statute did not involve a criminal prosecution, but rather a civil action to recover a debt. The Court noted that the Fifth Amendment only applies to criminal cases, and thus the statute did not violate the Fifth Amendment. The Court also noted that the statute provided for a hearing before a judge, which was sufficient to protect the petitioner's rights. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the statute was constitutional and did not violate the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial in criminal cases. The Court noted that the statute provided for a hearing before a judge, which was sufficient to protect the petitioner's rights.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Coffey v. United States, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that under existing laws, a person could not be convicted of an offense unless it had been charged in the indictment against them. In this case, he noted that although there were two counts in the indictment for larceny from a post office, only one count was submitted to the jury for their consideration and verdict. The second count should have been considered as well since it alleged different facts than those contained within Count 1; thus denying Coffey his right to due process by failing to consider all charges brought against him before rendering its verdict on any single charge. Justice Field concluded by stating that if such practices were allowed then no man would ever be safe from conviction when accused of crime because prosecutors could simply add additional counts until they found one upon which they could secure a conviction without considering all evidence or allowing defendants their full rights under law.