Cutner v. United States was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with 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 Cutner who was charged with a crime and was convicted without a grand jury indictment. Cutner argued that the conviction was invalid because the indictment was not found by a grand jury. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was valid because the Fifth Amendment does not require a grand jury indictment for all criminal cases. The Court reasoned that the Fifth Amendment only requires a grand jury indictment in cases where the offense is punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year. Since Cutner was not charged with a crime punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year, the Court held that the conviction was valid. The Court also held that the Fifth Amendment does not require a grand jury indictment for all criminal cases, but only for those cases where the offense is punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year. This ruling established the precedent that a defendant can be convicted of a crime without a grand jury indictment if the offense is not punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Cutner v. United States, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that Congress had no authority to pass a statute which would allow for an individual to be convicted of a crime without being found guilty by either judge or jury. Furthermore, he noted that if such a statute were allowed, it would violate due process rights as guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Justice Field also argued that allowing individuals to be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone was not sufficient grounds for conviction and could lead to wrongful convictions based on faulty reasoning or speculation rather than actual proof beyond reasonable doubt. Finally, he concluded his dissent by noting that any attempt by Congress to pass such legislation should have been struck down as unconstitutional since it violated fundamental principles of fairness and justice enshrined in our nation's laws.