United States v. Gleeson was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a federal court had the authority to impose a sentence beyond the statutory maximum. The case involved a defendant, John Gleeson, who was convicted of violating the federal statute prohibiting the sale of liquor without a license. The statute provided for a maximum sentence of two years in prison. However, the trial court imposed a sentence of three years in prison. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not have the authority to impose a sentence beyond the statutory maximum. The Court reasoned that the power to impose a sentence beyond the statutory maximum was not granted to the federal courts by the Constitution or by Congress. The Court further noted that the power to impose a sentence beyond the statutory maximum was a power reserved to the states. The Court concluded that the trial court's sentence of three years in prison was invalid and that the defendant should be resentenced to the statutory maximum of two years in prison. The Court's decision in United States v. Gleeson established that federal courts do not have the authority to impose sentences beyond the statutory maximum.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Gleeson, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that it was not necessary for a defendant to be present at trial in order for his conviction to stand, as long as he had been properly served with notice of the proceedings and given an opportunity to appear if he so desired. Furthermore, Justice Field asserted that there were no legal grounds upon which a court could set aside or reverse a judgment simply because the accused did not appear at trial; rather, such judgments should only be overturned when they are found to have been obtained by fraud or collusion on behalf of either party involved in the case. In conclusion, Justice Field maintained that while it may have been unfortunate for Gleeson not to attend his own trial due to illness or other extenuating circumstances beyond his control, this alone did not provide sufficient cause for overturning his conviction under existing laws governing criminal trials.