United States v. Pinson was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The case involved a defendant, Pinson, who was charged with the crime of receiving stolen goods. At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that Pinson had been in possession of the stolen goods, but the evidence was not sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that Pinson could not be convicted of the crime. The Court reasoned that the prosecution had failed to prove that Pinson had knowledge of the stolen nature of the goods, which was an essential element of the crime. The Court also noted that the evidence presented at trial was circumstantial and that the jury should have been instructed to consider the evidence in light of the reasonable doubt standard. The Court's decision in United States v. Pinson established that a defendant cannot be convicted of a crime if the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important part of criminal law in the United States.

In United States v. Pinson, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents in a patent infringement case. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that Congress intended for appeals from decisions by the Commissioner of Patents to be heard in federal courts as part of their appellate power under Article III of the Constitution. He noted that Congress had provided for appeals from other administrative bodies and thus should also provide for appeals from decisions made by Patent Commissioners since they were exercising judicial powers delegated to them by Congress. Furthermore, he argued that allowing these types of cases to be heard in federal courts would help ensure uniformity among all patent cases regardless if they originated at state or local levels or through proceedings before Patent Commissioners themselves.