United States v. Brindle 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 failed to allege the essential elements of the offense. The Court held that a defendant could not be convicted of a crime if the indictment failed to allege the essential elements of the offense. The case involved the defendant, William Brindle, who was indicted for the crime of “uttering a false and forged instrument.” The indictment failed to allege that the instrument was false and forged. The defendant argued that the indictment was insufficient to support a conviction because it failed to allege the essential elements of the offense. The government argued that the indictment was sufficient because it alleged the essential elements of the offense. The Supreme Court held that the indictment was insufficient to support a conviction because it failed to allege the essential elements of the offense. The Court reasoned that an indictment must allege all of the essential elements of the offense in order to be sufficient to support a conviction. The Court noted that the indictment in this case failed to allege that the instrument was false and forged, which was an essential element of the offense. Therefore, the Court held that the indictment was insufficient to support a conviction and the defendant could not be convicted of the crime.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Brindle, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and sound legal reasoning. He argued that a defendant cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is specifically charged in the indictment or information filed against them. In this case, although there were two counts charging violations of different statutes, they essentially alleged one offense - namely, selling liquor without a license - which should have been charged as only one count instead of two separate ones. Justice Field further noted that even if Congress had intended for each violation to constitute a distinct crime with its own punishment attached thereto, such intent could not supersede established rules regarding indictments and informations; thus any additional penalty imposed on top of what was already specified by statute would be unconstitutional under Article III Section 2 Clause 3 of the U.S Constitution (the "Excessive Fines Clause").