United States v. Vigil 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 obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The Court held that the evidence was admissible and that the defendant could be convicted. The case arose when the defendant, Jose Vigil, was arrested for selling liquor without a license. The arresting officers had searched his home without a warrant and seized the liquor. Vigil argued that the search and seizure were illegal and that the evidence should be excluded from trial. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the evidence was admissible and that the defendant could be convicted. The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, does not provide a remedy for the exclusion of evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The Court held that the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence, was not applicable in this case. The Court's decision in United States v. Vigil established that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure can be used in a criminal trial. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has been used to support the idea that the exclusionary rule does not apply in all cases.

In United States v. Vigil, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a defendant could be convicted of murder for killing another person in self-defense on Indian land. The majority opinion held that the defendant could not be convicted because he acted in self-defense and thus did not commit an unlawful act. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that Congress had exclusive authority to regulate Indian affairs and therefore it should have been up to them to decide if the defendant should face criminal charges or not. He argued further that since Congress had failed to pass any laws regarding such matters at the time of this case, then it was within their power as well as within their duty towards Native Americans living under US jurisdiction to do so now. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that by failing to pass legislation governing these issues left open questions about who has legal authority over Indians living on reservations and what rights they possess when faced with violence against them - questions which must ultimately be answered by Congress before any convictions can take place in similar cases going forward.