United States v. Vigil was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a person could be convicted of a crime if the evidence was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The case involved a man named Jose Vigil, who was accused of selling liquor without a license. The government obtained evidence against Vigil through an illegal search and seizure, and he was subsequently convicted. Vigil appealed his conviction, arguing that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure should not be used against him. The Supreme Court agreed with Vigil, ruling that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was inadmissible in court. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that any evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure must be excluded from court proceedings. This ruling established the exclusionary rule, which states that any evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure must be excluded from court proceedings. This ruling has been used in numerous cases since then, and is still used today to protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.

In United States v. Vigil, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a defendant could be convicted of murder if he had not directly caused the death of another person. The majority opinion held that a conviction for murder was appropriate in this case because the defendant had acted with malice aforethought and his actions were likely to cause death or great bodily harm. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: first, that there must be proof beyond reasonable doubt that an act committed by one person is actually responsible for causing another's death; second, that it would be unjust to punish someone who did not intend their actions to result in such serious consequences as death or great bodily harm. He argued instead for a lesser charge than murder since intent and causation are difficult elements to prove beyond reasonable doubt when they cannot be seen directly but only inferred from circumstantial evidence.