In United States v. Behan, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction to try a criminal case involving a violation of a federal statute. The defendant, Behan, was charged with violating a federal statute that prohibited the sale of liquor to Native Americans. Behan argued that the federal court did not have jurisdiction to try the case because the offense was committed on a reservation and was therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of the state. The Supreme Court held that the federal court did have jurisdiction to try the case. The Court reasoned that the federal statute in question was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to regulate commerce with Indian tribes, and that the federal court had jurisdiction to try the case because the offense was committed in a place where Congress had exclusive jurisdiction. The Court also noted that the offense was committed in a place where the state had no jurisdiction, and that the state had no power to regulate the sale of liquor to Native Americans. The Court concluded that the federal court had jurisdiction to try the case, and that the defendant could not successfully challenge the jurisdiction of the federal court. The Court held that the federal court had jurisdiction to try the case, and that the defendant was properly convicted.

In United States v. Behan, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a defendant could be convicted of murder for killing someone while attempting to escape from lawful custody. The majority opinion held that such an act constituted murder and affirmed the conviction. Justice Field dissented, arguing that it would be unjust to punish a person with death or imprisonment for taking desperate measures in order to avoid confinement when they had been lawfully arrested but not yet tried or convicted of any crime. He argued that if the defendant had killed someone while trying to escape before being brought into court, he should have only been charged with manslaughter instead of murder because there was no malice aforethought involved in his actions and thus no premeditation necessary for a charge of murder.