In United States v. Bryant & Another, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime based on the testimony of an accomplice. The Court held that a conviction could be based solely on the testimony of an accomplice, provided that the testimony was corroborated by other evidence. The case involved two defendants, Bryant and another, who were charged with the crime of counterfeiting. The prosecution's case was based solely on the testimony of an accomplice, who had been granted immunity in exchange for his testimony. The defendants argued that the accomplice's testimony was insufficient to support a conviction, as it was not corroborated by other evidence. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the accomplice's testimony was sufficient to support a conviction, provided that it was corroborated by other evidence. The Court noted that the accomplice's testimony was corroborated by other evidence, including the testimony of other witnesses and physical evidence. The Court concluded that the accomplice's testimony was sufficient to support a conviction, and the defendants were found guilty. In sum, the Supreme Court held that a conviction could be based solely on the testimony of an accomplice, provided that the testimony was corroborated by other evidence. The Court found that the accomplice's testimony in this case was sufficiently corroborated, and the defendants were found guilty.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Bryant & Another, arguing that Congress had no authority to pass a law allowing for criminal prosecution of an Indian accused of murdering another Indian on tribal land. He argued that since Indians were not citizens and thus did not have full protection under the Constitution, it was up to each tribe's own laws and customs to determine how such crimes should be punished. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress could pass a law like this one then they would also be able to interfere with other matters traditionally left up to tribes' internal governance - something which would undermine their sovereignty as well as violate treaties between them and the US government. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that while murder is certainly wrong regardless of who commits it or where it takes place, this particular case should have been handled by the tribe itself rather than through federal legislation.