Wilkerson v. Utah was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of capital punishment. The case involved George Q. Wilkerson, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who was convicted of murder in the Utah Territory. Wilkerson argued that his execution by firing squad violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court rejected Wilkerson's argument, ruling that the Eighth Amendment did not apply to the states and territories. The Court held that the Eighth Amendment only applied to the federal government, and that the states and territories were free to impose whatever punishments they deemed appropriate. The Court also noted that the firing squad was a common form of execution in the United States at the time, and that it was not considered cruel or unusual. In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled that Wilkerson's execution by firing squad did not violate the Eighth Amendment, and that the states and territories were free to impose whatever punishments they deemed appropriate. The Court's ruling in Wilkerson v. Utah established that the Eighth Amendment only applied to the federal government, and not to the states and territories.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wilkerson v. Utah, arguing that the death penalty imposed on William Wilkerson was unconstitutional and violated his right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. He argued that while capital punishment is not necessarily cruel or unusual within itself, it must be applied with discretion and fairness by a jury of peers who are guided by proper instructions from a judge. In this case, Justice Field found that there were several errors made during trial which denied Wilkerson's right to due process: firstly, he noted that no evidence had been presented as to why such an extreme sentence should have been given; secondly, he pointed out how improper instructions had been given regarding mitigating circumstances; thirdly, he highlighted how jurors were allowed to consider matters outside of what was presented at trial when deciding upon their verdict; finally, Justice Field concluded by noting how some members of the jury may have held religious beliefs which could have influenced their decision-making without being properly addressed beforehand. Ultimately then for these reasons Justice Field believed that Wilkerson's conviction should be overturned and his sentence commuted accordingly.