United States v. Burr

25 F. Cas. 2, 1807 U.S. App. LEXIS 489
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Virginia
DecidedApril 1, 1807
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 25 F. Cas. 2 (United States v. Burr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 2, 1807 U.S. App. LEXIS 489 (circtdva 1807).

Opinion

MARSHALL, Chief Justice.

I am required on the part of the attorney for the United States to commit the accused on two charges: (1) For setting on foot and providing the means for an expedition against the territories of a nation at peace with the United States. (2) For committing high treason against the United States.

On an application of this kind I certainly should not require that proof which would be necessary to convict the person to be committed, on a trial in chief; nor should I even require that which should absolutely convince my own mind of the guilt of the accused: but I ought to require, and I should require, that probable cause be shown; and I understand probable cause to be a case made out by proof furnishing good reason to believe that the crime alleged has been committed by the person charged with having committed it. I think this opinion entirely reconcilable with that quoted from Judge Blackstone. When that learned and accurate commentator says, that “if upon an inquiry it manifestly appears that no such crime has been committed, or that the suspicion entertained of the prisoner was wholly groundless, in such cases only it is lawful totally to discharge him, otherwise he must be committed to prison or give bail,” 1 do not understand him as meaning to say that the hand of malignity may grasp any individual against whom its hate may be directed, or whom it may capriciously seize, charge him with some secret crime, and put him on the proof of his innocence. But I understand that the foundation of the proceeding must be a probable , cause to believe there is guilt; which probable cause is only to be done away in the manner stated by Blackstone. The total failure of proof on the part of the accuser would be considered by that writer as being in itself a legal manifestation of the innocence of the accused. In inquiring, therefore, into the charges exhibited against Aaron Burr, I hold -myself bound to consider how far those charges are supported by probable cause.

The first charge stands upon the testimony of General Eaton and General Wilkinson. The witness first named proves that among other projects which were more criminal, Colonel Burr meditated an expedition against the Mexican dominions of Spain. This deposition may be considered as introductory to the affidavit of General Wilkinson, and as explanatory of the objects of any military preparations which may have been made. I proceed, then, to that affidavit. To make the testimony of General Wilkinson bear on Colonel Burr, it is necessary to consider as genuine the letter stated by the former to be. as nearly as he can make it, an interpretation of one received in cypher from the latter. Exclude this letter, and nothing remains in the testimony which can in the most remote degree affect Colonel Burr. That there are to the admissibility of this part of the affidavit great and obvious objections need not be stated to those who know with how much caution proceedings in criminal cases ought to be instituted, and ‘ who know that the highest tribunal of the United States has been divided on them. When this question came before the supreme court, I felt the full force of these objections, although I did not yield to them. On weighing in my own mind the reasons for and against acting, in this stage of the business, on that part of the affidavit those in favor of doing so appeared to me to preponderate, and, as [13]*13this opinion was not overruled, I hold myself still at liberty to conform to it. That the original letter, or a true copy of it accompanied by the cypher, would have been much more satisfactory, is not to be denied; but I thought, and I still think, that, upon a mere question whether the accused shall be brought to trial or not, upon an inquiry not into guilt but into probable cause, the omission of a circumstance which 4s indeed important, but which does not disprove the positive allegations of an affidavit, ought not to induce its rejection or its absolute disbelief, when the maker of the affidavit is at too great a distance to repair the fault. I could not in this stage of the prosecution absolutely discredit the affidavit, because the material facts alleged may very well be within the knowledge of the witness, although he has failed to state explicitly all the means by which this knowledge is obtained. Thus, General Wilkinson states that this letter was received from Colonel Burr, but does not say that it was in his hand-writing, nor does he state the evidence which supports this affirmation. But, in addition to the circumstance that the positive assertion of the fact ought not perhaps, in this stage of the inquiry, to be disregarded, the nature of the ease furnishes that evidence. The letter was in cypher. General Wilkinson, it is true, does not say that a cypher had been previously settled between Colonel Burr and himself, in which they might correspond on subjects whichr though innocent, neither' of them might wish to subject to the casualties of a transportation from the Atlantic to the Mississippi; but when we perceive that Colonel Burr has written in cypher, and that General Wilkinson is able to decypher the letter, we must either presume that the bearer of the letter was also the bearer of its key, or that the key was previously in possession of the person to whom the letter was addressed. In stating particularly the circumstances attending the delivery of this letter, General Wilkinson does not say that it was accompanied by the key, or that he felt any surprise at its being in cypher. For this reason, as well as because there is not much more security in sending a letter in cypher, accompanied by its key, than there is in sending a letter not in cypher, I think it more reasonable to suppose that the key was previously in possession of Wilkinson. If this was the fact, the letter being written in a cypher previously settled between himself and Colonel Burr, is, in this stage of the inquiry at least, a circumstance which sufficiently supports the assertion that the letter was written by Colonel Burr. The enterprise described in this letter is obviously a military enterprise, and must have been intended either against the United States, or against the territories of some other power on the continent, with all of whom the United States were at peace. The expressions of this letter must be admitted to furnish at least probable cause for believing that the means for the expedition were provided. In every part of it we find declarations indicating that he was providing the means for the expedition; and as these means might be provided in secret, I do not think that further testimony ought to be required to satisfy me that there is probable cause for committing the prisoner on this charge. . Since it will be entirely in the power of the attorney general to prefer an indictment against the prisoner, for any other offence which he shall think himself possessed of testimony to support, it is, in fact, immaterial whether the second charge be expressed in the warrant of commitment or not; but as I hold it to be my duty to insert every charge alleged on the part of the United States, in support of which probable cause is shown, and to insert none in support of which probable cause is not shown, I am bound to proceed in the inquiry.

The second charge exhibited against the prisoner is high treason against the United States in levying war against them. As this is the most artocious offence which can be committed against the political body, so is it the charge which is most capable of being employed as the instrument of those malignant and vindictive passions which may rage in the bosoms of contending parties struggling for power.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Flores Montañez v. González
79 P.R. Dec. 939 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1957)
Dennis v. United States
339 U.S. 162 (Supreme Court, 1950)
Cramer v. United States
325 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1945)
Hill v. Martin
296 U.S. 393 (Supreme Court, 1935)
In re the Contempt of Stewart
121 Wash. 429 (Washington Supreme Court, 1922)
Calkins v. Smietanka
240 F. 138 (N.D. Illinois, 1917)
Stitzel v. Miller
95 N.E. 53 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1911)
State v. Koch
85 P. 272 (Montana Supreme Court, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 F. Cas. 2, 1807 U.S. App. LEXIS 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-burr-circtdva-1807.