In The United States v. Kelly and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a defendant could be convicted of an offense if they were not present at the time it was committed. In this case, two defendants had been indicted for aiding in the illegal importation of goods into the United States from France without paying duties or taxes due on them. Both defendants argued that since they were not physically present when their alleged crime occurred, they should not be held liable for it. However, after considering all evidence presented before them, including testimony from witnesses who stated that both men had knowledge of and consented to such activities prior to their departure from France, the court ruled against them and found them guilty as charged. This ruling established precedent which holds individuals accountable for crimes even if they are absent during its commission; thus setting a standard by which future cases involving similar matters would be judged upon going forward.

In the United States v. Kelly and Others, Chief Justice John Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent. He noted that Congress had previously passed laws allowing for the seizure of vessels engaged in illegal trade with foreign nations, and thus it should not be necessary to prove an intent on behalf of those accused of such offenses. Furthermore, Marshall contended that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support a conviction against Kelly and others as they were found guilty by a jury based upon their own admissions during testimony. Ultimately, Marshall concluded that due process must be followed when determining guilt or innocence regardless of whether or not an individual intended to commit any offense; therefore, he believed the convictions should stand despite his disagreement with some aspects of the majority opinion.