United States v. Shoemaker was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the indictment was not found in the district where the crime was committed. The case involved a man named John Shoemaker, who was indicted in the District of Columbia for a crime that was committed in the state of Maryland. The Supreme Court held that the indictment was valid, and that the defendant could be convicted of the crime even though the indictment was not found in the district where the crime was committed. The Supreme Court reasoned that the Constitution does not require that an indictment be found in the district where the crime was committed, and that the defendant could be convicted of the crime even if the indictment was found in a different district. The Court also noted that the defendant had been given notice of the indictment and had been given an opportunity to appear and defend himself. The Court concluded that the defendant had been given due process of law, and that the indictment was valid. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the defendant could be convicted of the crime even though the indictment was not found in the district where the crime was committed. The Court reasoned that the Constitution does not require that an indictment be found in the district where the crime was committed, and that the defendant had been given due process of law.

In United States v. Shoemaker, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a defendant could be convicted of an offense that had been committed before Congress passed a law making it illegal. The majority opinion held that since the act in question occurred prior to the passage of the statute, there was no criminal liability and thus no conviction should stand. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that when Congress passes a law which makes something previously legal into an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment then any person who has already violated such laws is liable for punishment; secondly, he asserted that if Congress intended to make certain acts criminal only after they were committed then it would have stated so explicitly in its legislation. As such, Justice Field concluded that even though Shoemaker's actions occurred prior to the enactment of the relevant statute they still constituted an offense under federal law and therefore his conviction should be upheld.