United States v. Burr
25 F. Cas. 187 (1807)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a criminal prosecution for a statutory misdemeanor, the out-of-court declarations of an alleged accomplice are inadmissible hearsay unless conspiracy is charged in the indictment. Furthermore, acts committed by the accused in a different jurisdiction, which constitute a separate offense, cannot be admitted as evidence to prove the commission of the distinct offense charged in the indictment.
Facts:
- Aaron Burr was accused of organizing a private military expedition to be carried on against the territory of Spain.
- The indictment specifically charged Burr with committing the offense of beginning or setting on foot this expedition at Blennerhassett's Island, within the federal district of Virginia.
- Herman Blennerhassett, an associate of Burr, resided on the island and was allegedly involved in the preparations for the expedition.
- Many of the alleged overt acts related to the expedition, such as recruiting men and arranging for supplies and boats, occurred in other states and territories, including Kentucky and Ohio.
- Burr was not physically present on Blennerhassett's Island at the time the prosecution alleged the expedition was 'begun' or 'set on foot' there.
- The prosecution sought to introduce testimony about conversations Herman Blennerhassett had with third parties outside of Burr's presence.
- The prosecution also sought to introduce evidence of Burr's own actions and statements made in Kentucky and Ohio to prove the charges alleged to have occurred in Virginia.
Procedural Posture:
- Following Aaron Burr's acquittal on charges of treason, the prosecution proceeded on a separate indictment for a misdemeanor.
- Burr was charged in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Virginia with beginning or setting on foot a military expedition against Spanish territory, with the offense alleged to have occurred at Blennerhassett's Island.
- During the jury trial, the prosecution offered to present testimony from Richard Neale about conversations he had with Herman Blennerhassett, an alleged accomplice of Burr.
- The prosecution also sought to introduce evidence of Burr's actions and declarations in other districts, such as Kentucky and Ohio, to prove the charges in Virginia.
- The defense counsel objected to the admission of this evidence, arguing it was inadmissible hearsay and irrelevant to the specific charges laid in the indictment for the District of Virginia.
- The court heard arguments on the defendant's motion to exclude the proffered testimony.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are the out-of-court declarations of an alleged accomplice and the acts of the accused in a different jurisdiction, which constitute a separate offense, admissible as evidence to prove that the accused committed the specific misdemeanor charged within the court's jurisdiction?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Marshall
No. The out-of-court declarations of an alleged accomplice and the acts of the accused in a different jurisdiction are not admissible to prove the charged offense. The rule against hearsay is a fundamental principle essential to the administration of justice. The exception for co-conspirator statements is not applicable here because conspiracy was not alleged in the indictment; the crime charged consists of specific acts, not the intention or agreement to act. Furthermore, the Constitution requires that a crime be tried in the district where it was committed. Acts committed by the accused in a different district constitute a distinct crime and cannot be used as evidence to prove the separate crime charged in the indictment, as their commission does not prove the commission of the other. The law distinguishes between the person who commits a prohibited act (the principal) and one who advises or is associated with them (the accessory), and a statute penalizing the former does not automatically penalize the latter.
Analysis:
This opinion establishes critical evidentiary and jurisdictional safeguards in American criminal law. By strictly limiting the co-conspirator exception to cases where conspiracy is explicitly charged, the court reinforced the core protections of the hearsay rule and prevented prosecutors from bootstrapping guilt through association. The ruling on territorial jurisdiction underscored the constitutional requirement of venue, preventing the government from using evidence of a crime in one state to prove a wholly separate charge in another. This set a high procedural bar for prosecutions, particularly in politically charged cases, emphasizing that a defendant can only be convicted for specific acts proven to have occurred within the charging district, thereby protecting individuals from vague, sprawling accusations.
