Robinson v. United States was a Supreme Court case in 1871 that dealt with the issue of whether a person could be convicted of a crime if the evidence used to convict them was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The case involved a man named William Robinson who was arrested for violating the federal revenue laws. The arresting officers had searched Robinson's home without a warrant and seized evidence that was used to convict him. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Robinson, finding that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was inadmissible in court. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures and that any evidence obtained through such searches and seizures is inadmissible in court. This ruling established the exclusionary rule, which states that evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures is not admissible in court. This ruling has been used in many subsequent cases to protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.

In Robinson v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a defendant could be convicted of two separate offenses arising from one act. The majority opinion held that the defendant could indeed be convicted of both offenses, but Justice Field dissented on the grounds that such a conviction would violate double jeopardy principles established by common law and in prior cases. He argued that if Congress had intended for multiple convictions to arise from one act, it should have been explicitly stated in the statute at issue. Furthermore, he noted that allowing multiple convictions based on one act would lead to oppressive punishments and encourage prosecutors to charge defendants with every possible offense they may have committed instead of selecting only those most appropriate for their conduct.