Kring v. Missouri was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state could constitutionally deny a defendant the right to a jury trial in a criminal case. The case arose when the defendant, John Kring, was charged with a misdemeanor in Missouri and was denied a jury trial. Kring argued that the denial of a jury trial violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment did not guarantee a jury trial in all criminal cases, but that it did guarantee a jury trial in all cases where the punishment was greater than a fine of $20. The Court reasoned that the right to a jury trial was a fundamental right that could not be denied without due process of law. The Court also held that the right to a jury trial was not absolute and could be limited by the state in certain circumstances. The Court noted that the state could limit the right to a jury trial in cases where the punishment was less than a fine of $20, as long as the state provided an alternative form of trial that was fair and impartial. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state of Missouri had violated Kring's right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Court held that the state could limit the right to a jury trial in cases where the punishment was less than a fine of $20, as long as the state provided an alternative form of trial that was fair and impartial.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Kring v. Missouri, arguing that the state of Missouri had violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying a fair trial to William Kring. He argued that due process requires an impartial jury and that this was not present in Kring's case because several jurors were related to one another or had previously expressed bias against him. Furthermore, he noted that even though there may have been no actual prejudice on behalf of those jurors, their relationship with each other created an appearance of partiality which should have disqualified them from serving on his jury. Justice Field concluded by stating that if such practices are allowed to stand then it would be difficult for any defendant accused of a crime in Missouri to receive a fair trial as guaranteed under the Constitution.