Burr Conspiracy and Acquittal Establishes Elite Immunity from Treason Prosecution

President Thomas Jefferson issues a proclamation warning that an unlawful military expedition against Spanish Mexico is being planned, marking the beginning of federal response to the Burr Conspiracy—a treasonous plot by former Vice President Aaron Burr to either invade Spanish territories or detach western states from the Union. Burr’s conspiracy originates in discussions with General James Wilkinson, head of a party favoring western separation from Atlantic states, who communicates with Burr using a cipher. When Wilkinson believes Burr’s plan will fail, he betrays Burr to save himself, sending Jefferson a letter outlining the conspiracy without initially naming Burr. Jefferson acts on testimony from Wilkinson despite knowing his character to be unreliable.

On January 22, 1807, Jefferson pronounces Burr guilty of treason to Congress and the nation before any grand jury indictment, violating fundamental due process principles. When Burr is captured and brought to trial in Richmond, Virginia, the case features an extraordinary cast: the defendant Aaron Burr (founding father, Vice President, and slayer of Alexander Hamilton), trial judge Chief Justice John Marshall, the prosecution backed by Jefferson, and defense attorneys Edmund Randolph and Luther Martin (both Constitutional Convention delegates). Marshall rules that treason and conspiracy to commit treason are distinct crimes, defining treason narrowly while emphasizing demanding constitutional standards requiring two witnesses to the same overt act. Marshall’s decision virtually guarantees Burr’s acquittal despite substantial evidence of treasonous intent.

Historians Nancy Isenberg and Andrew Burstein conclude Burr “was not guilty of treason, nor was he ever convicted, because there was no evidence, not one credible piece of testimony, and the star witness for the prosecution had to admit that he had doctored a letter implicating Burr.” However, lawyer David O. Stewart argues Burr’s intentions “constituted the crime of treason” but notes that neither invasion of Spanish lands nor secession was considered treasonous by most Americans in 1806. The trial establishes a pattern of elite immunity where politically connected individuals escape accountability for actions that would result in severe punishment for ordinary citizens. Marshall’s narrow interpretation makes it difficult for future presidents to use treason charges for suppressing political dissent, but simultaneously creates a high bar protecting elite conspirators from prosecution—a dynamic that persists throughout American history when powerful actors commit acts against national interests yet evade legal consequences through procedural protections, sympathetic judges, and institutional connections.