In United States v. Grossmayer, the Supreme Court considered whether a defendant could be convicted of counterfeiting coins when he had not actually made them himself but instead purchased and passed them off as genuine. The court held that it was sufficient to convict him for passing counterfeit coins even if he did not make them himself, because his actions were still intended to deceive people into believing they were real currency. This decision established that anyone who knowingly passes or attempts to pass counterfeit money can be found guilty of counterfeiting regardless of their involvement in its production.

In United States v. Grossmayer, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a person who had been convicted of treason in a state court could be tried again for the same crime in federal court. The majority opinion held that such double jeopardy did not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against being "twice put in jeopardy" because it applied only to criminal prosecutions by two different sovereigns. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that since both state and federal governments were part of one nation, they should be considered as one sovereign entity when it came to double jeopardy protections under the Constitution. He argued that allowing multiple trials for the same offense would lead to oppressive government practices and undermine public confidence in justice systems across all levels of government. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress wanted to allow dual prosecutions then it should pass legislation explicitly authorizing them instead of relying on judicial interpretation alone.