Farrell 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 evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The case involved a man named Farrell who was charged with the crime of receiving stolen goods. At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that Farrell had been in possession of the stolen goods, but the defense argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that Farrell could not be convicted of the crime. The Court reasoned that the prosecution had failed to prove that Farrell had knowledge of the stolen goods or that he had received them with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of them. The Court also noted that the evidence presented at trial was circumstantial and that the jury should have been instructed to consider the evidence in light of the reasonable doubt standard. The decision in Farrell v. United States established that a defendant cannot be convicted of a crime if the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important part of criminal law in the United States.

In the case of Farrell v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a defendant could be convicted for an offense that had not been committed within the jurisdiction of any particular state or district. The majority opinion held that such a conviction was permissible under federal law and did not violate due process protections. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that Congress had no authority to pass laws criminalizing acts which were not committed in any particular state; secondly, he contended that allowing convictions for offenses outside of a specific jurisdiction violated due process by depriving defendants of their right to trial by jury in their own community. Ultimately, Justice Field's dissent failed to sway his colleagues and the majority ruling stood as precedent until it was overturned nearly one hundred years later with McNally v. United States (1987).