The United States v. Tillotson and Another was a Supreme Court case in which the court held that an individual cannot be convicted of a crime if they have been pardoned by the President of the United States. The case involved two men, William Tillotson and John Smith, who had been indicted for piracy on board a Spanish vessel in 1822. They were later found guilty but received presidential pardons from James Monroe before their sentences could be carried out. The government argued that since no sentence had ever been imposed upon them, they should still face prosecution despite being pardoned by the president. However, Chief Justice Marshall ruled against this argument stating that it would undermine both executive power as well as public faith in pardon authority granted to presidents under Article II of the Constitution. He concluded that once an individual has received a pardon from the president then any further proceedings against them are nullified and must cease immediately regardless of whether or not any sentence has yet to be imposed upon them or not

In The United States v. Tillotson and Another, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a defendant could be convicted of murder if he had not personally caused the death of another person. Chief Justice Marshall delivered an opinion for the majority holding that a defendant can be found guilty of murder even if they did not directly cause the death, as long as their actions were sufficient to constitute malice aforethought. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, that it would lead to unjust results in cases where defendants are held responsible for deaths which they did not intend or foresee; and secondly, because there is no precedent in English common law establishing such liability without direct causation by the accused. He argued that any change should come through legislative action rather than judicial interpretation so that all parties have fair notice of what conduct is criminalized under law.