The Burr treason trial, one of the greatest criminal trials in American history, was significant for several reasons. The legal proceedings lasted seven months and featured some of the nation's best lawyers. It also pitted President Thomas Jefferson (who declared Burr guilty without the benefit of a trial and who masterminded the prosecution), Chief Justice John Marshall (who sat as a trial judge in the federal circuit court in Richmond), and former Vice President Aaron Burr (who was accused of planning to separate the western states from the Union) against each other. At issue, in addition to the life of Aaron Burr, were the rights of criminal defendants, the constitutional definition of treason, and the meaning of separation of powers in the Constitution. Capturing the sheer drama of the long trial, Kent Newmyer's book sheds new light on the chaotic process by which lawyers, judges, and politicians fashioned law for the new nation.
The Treason Trial of Aaron Burr
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
Product Description
Review
"Newmyer proves a worthy, wise guide to the Burr treason trial. This book has no heroes. Jefferson is manipulative. Burr is an arrogant anti-hero. Marshall slowly picks and cavils his way toward an independent federal judiciary. Gifted, flawed lawyers successfully defend one of the last men in America worth defending. The epilogue serves as a stunning summary of Newmyer's brilliant insights on the early republic." - Mary Sarah Bilder, Boston College Law School
"This lively narrative is the best short account of the Aaron Burr treason trial, one of the most colorful and dramatic episodes in the nation's history. Kent Newmyer brings a fresh perspective to the task, showing how a distinctively American law of treason emerged from the clash of outsized personalities gathered in Richmond in the summer of 1807. He is unexcelled in his mastery of the interplay of law and politics in the early republic." - Charles F. Hobson, William and Mary Law School
"Kent Newmyer has long been one of our leading constitutional historians, and this book displays his command of both the political and the technical aspects of early American public law. This book is a tremendous scholarly achievement, but that is not all: Newmyer has crafted a riveting story about the all-star cast of lawyers who took part in the trial and, of course, the three great antagonists, Jefferson, Marshall, and Burr himself. A masterpiece." - H. Jefferson Powell, Duke University School of Law
"The trial of Aaron Burr for treason in 1807 has been one of those episodes in American legal history to which many people refer and few understand. Kent Newmyer is exceptionally well qualified to unravel the complicated legal and political dimensions of the trial, and he has done so in erudite and accessible fashion." - G. Edward White, University of Virginia School of Law
"Kent Newmyer, one of the most distinguished legal historians in the country, has written an extraordinarily learned and balanced account of what is arguably the greatest criminal trial in American history. The trial seems as relevant today as it was in 1807." - Gordon S. Wood, Brown University
"Newmyer excels at presenting legal issues with microscopic clarity." -Daniel Dyer, The Plain Dealer
"R. Kent Newmyer...has quite a story to tell, and he tells it well." -The Weekly Standard
"This engaging and readable work offers a new look at a major historical moment in an early period of the development of the U.S. legal system, and in doing so offers a fresh perspective on a much-studied subject." -HARVARD LAW REVIEW
"Essential." -Choice
"This lively narrative is the best short account of the Aaron Burr treason trial, one of the most colorful and dramatic episodes in the nation's history. Kent Newmyer brings a fresh perspective to the task, showing how a distinctively American law of treason emerged from the clash of outsized personalities gathered in Richmond in the summer of 1807. He is unexcelled in his mastery of the interplay of law and politics in the early republic." - Charles F. Hobson, William and Mary Law School
"Kent Newmyer has long been one of our leading constitutional historians, and this book displays his command of both the political and the technical aspects of early American public law. This book is a tremendous scholarly achievement, but that is not all: Newmyer has crafted a riveting story about the all-star cast of lawyers who took part in the trial and, of course, the three great antagonists, Jefferson, Marshall, and Burr himself. A masterpiece." - H. Jefferson Powell, Duke University School of Law
"The trial of Aaron Burr for treason in 1807 has been one of those episodes in American legal history to which many people refer and few understand. Kent Newmyer is exceptionally well qualified to unravel the complicated legal and political dimensions of the trial, and he has done so in erudite and accessible fashion." - G. Edward White, University of Virginia School of Law
"Kent Newmyer, one of the most distinguished legal historians in the country, has written an extraordinarily learned and balanced account of what is arguably the greatest criminal trial in American history. The trial seems as relevant today as it was in 1807." - Gordon S. Wood, Brown University
"Newmyer excels at presenting legal issues with microscopic clarity." -Daniel Dyer, The Plain Dealer
"R. Kent Newmyer...has quite a story to tell, and he tells it well." -The Weekly Standard
"This engaging and readable work offers a new look at a major historical moment in an early period of the development of the U.S. legal system, and in doing so offers a fresh perspective on a much-studied subject." -HARVARD LAW REVIEW
"Essential." -Choice
Book Description
The Burr trial featured some of America's most gifted lawyers and pitted Marshall, Jefferson, and Burr in a three-way contest that tracked the political and cultural differences of the new republic. This book focuses on the complex interaction of legal doctrine, political ideology, and character in the lawmaking process. The law that came out of the trial - the rights of criminal defendants, the constitutional meaning of treason, and the separation of powers, indeed the rule of law itself - left a permanent mark on American history.
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
Customer Reviews
Most helpful customer reviews
By Jason X
Format:Kindle Edition|Amazon Verified Purchase
If you are looking for a biography about Aaron Burr and/or his exploits (including, the so-called Burr conspiracy) or a straightforward detailed event-by-event recreation of the in/famous trial, this is probably NOT the book you are looking for; on the other hand, if you are looking for a book about the repercussions, implications and interpretations of the trial, one of the most important in American history, then you should pick this book up right away. A well-written, and easy-to-read account of the Burr trial, where Burr, himself, is only ONE of the major participants.
To say the Burr trial is one of the most important in American history is understating it. Even the principal figure of the trial (a former Vice President, the duelist of Alexander Hamilton, and considered a Founding Father) and his mysterious exploits, but also the vast array of other characters involved was enough to elevate a trial into a legal drama. While Burr is obviously the book's and the trial's main subject, this book is less about HIM in his own trial; Burr's life was undoubtedly on the line, but so was the nature and character of the United States, at that point still a young republic trying to figure the best way to grow up. Step into this trial (conflict), Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall, two other principal actors in the melodrama. Before them was assembled some of the most gifted and leading lawyers of the age, doing their own part, in their orations and interpretations of the law, to steer the course of not only the trial, but the future of law in America.
Indeed, the lack of any detailed account of the Burr conspiracy (what is known about it, anyway) shows Newmyer's intent at providing a book less about Burr and his life, but the "life" of the trial. As an aside, it is interesting to consider whether or not knowing about Burr and the conspiracy is helpful to understanding the book. I wonder about this only because: (A) we still do not know what the true nature of the conspiracy was (Burr, an enigma even in his own day, was not exactly forthcoming with the details, and he apparently told many different people many different things); and (B) it might actually help not to go into this book with preconceived notions about Burr or his guilt. Whether or not Burr was found guilty or not guilty (though there is a small section on the verdict and the wording of the verdict itself) is no more or less important than all of the whos, whys and hows, in other words, the entirety of the trial, itself.
Furthermore, this book's intent is not to make Burr the villain, nor is it to rehabilitate his character. One of the things I loved about this book was the lack of apparent bias against or towards the figures involved. Newmyer, in his detail, tries to create an account with no "heroes" or "villains". Burr is portrayed as Burr, the anti-hero; Jefferson less as a mythic Founding Father, and more as a person whose politics and prejudices informed his actions; and so on and so on. And despite having picked up the book because of my fascination with the enigmatic Burr, it was probably Newmyer's explanations and implications of John Marshall's decisions and actions that I found the most interesting.
If the Burr-Hamilton duel was the prime example of the early republic's conflicts of personalities, prejudices, and politics, set to that now-antiquated notion of "honor", on an individual level, the Burr trial was all that on a national scale. Personal rivalries, party politics, individual prejudices, and even honor, figured into the trial. Newmyer does an excellent job in detailing the many personalities, including motives and possible/probable reasons for their decisions and actions. Yet, hovering over all of them was the character of the United States. As law was interpreted, as politics muddied the proceedings, as personalities clashed, a nation watched, fascinated not only with the melodrama, but, indirectly, how the trial was to figure into the future of the United States.
Newmyer does a good job in capturing much of the drama, but does an even better job at explaining the legal proceedings and their implications. Yes, he does have a lot of help from the people involved, including John Marshall's own explanations and reasoning, and the lawyers who so brilliantly argued their cases. In a sense, they helped to write history. But where the written history shows itself to be confusing, Newmyer does an excellent job in explaining it. Points which are either important or hard to understand ARE often repeated, but in an easy-to-read fashion that makes it understandable to the average reader. He also makes it interesting.
Indeed, the explanations of law and lawmaking are as important and exciting as the rest of the drama. Newmyer succeeds in combining the technical legal bits and the history of the trial, itself, into an exciting, yet informative, story (that really happened). If you are looking for Burr's tale (or what we know of it, anyway), try another book (David O. Stewart's American Emperor is highly recommended). If you want high drama, trial history, lawmaking, and its effect on the future of the United States (for better or worse), this book is for you.
To say the Burr trial is one of the most important in American history is understating it. Even the principal figure of the trial (a former Vice President, the duelist of Alexander Hamilton, and considered a Founding Father) and his mysterious exploits, but also the vast array of other characters involved was enough to elevate a trial into a legal drama. While Burr is obviously the book's and the trial's main subject, this book is less about HIM in his own trial; Burr's life was undoubtedly on the line, but so was the nature and character of the United States, at that point still a young republic trying to figure the best way to grow up. Step into this trial (conflict), Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall, two other principal actors in the melodrama. Before them was assembled some of the most gifted and leading lawyers of the age, doing their own part, in their orations and interpretations of the law, to steer the course of not only the trial, but the future of law in America.
Indeed, the lack of any detailed account of the Burr conspiracy (what is known about it, anyway) shows Newmyer's intent at providing a book less about Burr and his life, but the "life" of the trial. As an aside, it is interesting to consider whether or not knowing about Burr and the conspiracy is helpful to understanding the book. I wonder about this only because: (A) we still do not know what the true nature of the conspiracy was (Burr, an enigma even in his own day, was not exactly forthcoming with the details, and he apparently told many different people many different things); and (B) it might actually help not to go into this book with preconceived notions about Burr or his guilt. Whether or not Burr was found guilty or not guilty (though there is a small section on the verdict and the wording of the verdict itself) is no more or less important than all of the whos, whys and hows, in other words, the entirety of the trial, itself.
Furthermore, this book's intent is not to make Burr the villain, nor is it to rehabilitate his character. One of the things I loved about this book was the lack of apparent bias against or towards the figures involved. Newmyer, in his detail, tries to create an account with no "heroes" or "villains". Burr is portrayed as Burr, the anti-hero; Jefferson less as a mythic Founding Father, and more as a person whose politics and prejudices informed his actions; and so on and so on. And despite having picked up the book because of my fascination with the enigmatic Burr, it was probably Newmyer's explanations and implications of John Marshall's decisions and actions that I found the most interesting.
If the Burr-Hamilton duel was the prime example of the early republic's conflicts of personalities, prejudices, and politics, set to that now-antiquated notion of "honor", on an individual level, the Burr trial was all that on a national scale. Personal rivalries, party politics, individual prejudices, and even honor, figured into the trial. Newmyer does an excellent job in detailing the many personalities, including motives and possible/probable reasons for their decisions and actions. Yet, hovering over all of them was the character of the United States. As law was interpreted, as politics muddied the proceedings, as personalities clashed, a nation watched, fascinated not only with the melodrama, but, indirectly, how the trial was to figure into the future of the United States.
Newmyer does a good job in capturing much of the drama, but does an even better job at explaining the legal proceedings and their implications. Yes, he does have a lot of help from the people involved, including John Marshall's own explanations and reasoning, and the lawyers who so brilliantly argued their cases. In a sense, they helped to write history. But where the written history shows itself to be confusing, Newmyer does an excellent job in explaining it. Points which are either important or hard to understand ARE often repeated, but in an easy-to-read fashion that makes it understandable to the average reader. He also makes it interesting.
Indeed, the explanations of law and lawmaking are as important and exciting as the rest of the drama. Newmyer succeeds in combining the technical legal bits and the history of the trial, itself, into an exciting, yet informative, story (that really happened). If you are looking for Burr's tale (or what we know of it, anyway), try another book (David O. Stewart's American Emperor is highly recommended). If you want high drama, trial history, lawmaking, and its effect on the future of the United States (for better or worse), this book is for you.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
4.9 out of 5 stars
15 reviews
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
This is a clear description of one of the most important US trials
Nov 26 2012
By Israel Drazin
- Published on Amazon.com
Format:Paperback|Amazon Vine™ Review
The two prior detailed reviews of this splendid book describe the history of the Burr trial, a trial considered one of the most significant in US history because of the legal, personal, and political issues presented in the trial and the people involved, some of the most prominent of the age. These included the Supreme Court Justice John Marshall, President Thomas Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and the leading attorneys of the time. Other famous people who commented on the trial include the writer Washington Irving, the ex-president John Adams, and several future presidents. Therefore I will only comment briefly upon the history and say a few words about R. Kent Newmyer's writing skill.
Aaron Burr had been vice president of the US for four years when Thomas Jefferson was president, from 1800 to 1804. He was a charismatic handsome man, very popular among the ladies, but was controversial. Jefferson did not want him in his second term, so Burr ran for governor of New York. Burr lost because Alexander Hamilton made disparaging remarks about him. He challenged Hamilton to a duel and killed Hamilton on July 11, 1804 in the duel, and people debated whether he acted properly. Many say that Hamilton fired his first shot into the air to avoid hitting Burr, but Burr then took advantage and shot to kill him.
How did Burr become vice president and why didn't Jefferson want him as vice president in his second term? In 1800, Burr had made a deal with Jefferson to allow Jefferson to be president and he vice president, but the voting became confused, and it was left to Congress to decide who would be president. In those days, the candidate who received the most votes would be president and the runner-up would be vice president. Both candidates received the same number of votes, and Burr reneged on his promise and tried to become president. It took 36 rounds of votes in Congress before Jefferson won with the help of Alexander Hamilton, and Jefferson never forgave Burr for his act. This was an additional reason why Burr hated Hamilton. Jefferson's hatred simmered and when he had a chance, Jefferson did all he could to persuade a court to find Burr guilty of treason, for which he would be killed. Newmyer shows why Jefferson's acts were inappropriate.
Newmyer describes the facts behind the treason charge, facts that still today remain muddled. Very briefly stated: Did Burr gather people to attack the Spanish and take Mexico from them only if there was war with Spain? If so, this was not treason. In fact, it would be heroic. Or, did he try to break away some western states from the union so that he could be the head of these states? If so, this was treason?
Newmyer tells the story with gripping prose making his non-fiction book read as if it were a suspenseful novel. He tends to repeat points several times, usually from different angles, and this is done well because the issues are complex, and Newmyer presents them in an easy to read comprehensible manner. He introduces us to the some dozen personalities and describes their views in a memorable fashion. The issues that I described above were the fathers of many sub-issues, such as what is treason, what actually happened that could be proved. Newmyer makes the legal issues crystal clear and the fact vivid.
Aaron Burr had been vice president of the US for four years when Thomas Jefferson was president, from 1800 to 1804. He was a charismatic handsome man, very popular among the ladies, but was controversial. Jefferson did not want him in his second term, so Burr ran for governor of New York. Burr lost because Alexander Hamilton made disparaging remarks about him. He challenged Hamilton to a duel and killed Hamilton on July 11, 1804 in the duel, and people debated whether he acted properly. Many say that Hamilton fired his first shot into the air to avoid hitting Burr, but Burr then took advantage and shot to kill him.
How did Burr become vice president and why didn't Jefferson want him as vice president in his second term? In 1800, Burr had made a deal with Jefferson to allow Jefferson to be president and he vice president, but the voting became confused, and it was left to Congress to decide who would be president. In those days, the candidate who received the most votes would be president and the runner-up would be vice president. Both candidates received the same number of votes, and Burr reneged on his promise and tried to become president. It took 36 rounds of votes in Congress before Jefferson won with the help of Alexander Hamilton, and Jefferson never forgave Burr for his act. This was an additional reason why Burr hated Hamilton. Jefferson's hatred simmered and when he had a chance, Jefferson did all he could to persuade a court to find Burr guilty of treason, for which he would be killed. Newmyer shows why Jefferson's acts were inappropriate.
Newmyer describes the facts behind the treason charge, facts that still today remain muddled. Very briefly stated: Did Burr gather people to attack the Spanish and take Mexico from them only if there was war with Spain? If so, this was not treason. In fact, it would be heroic. Or, did he try to break away some western states from the union so that he could be the head of these states? If so, this was treason?
Newmyer tells the story with gripping prose making his non-fiction book read as if it were a suspenseful novel. He tends to repeat points several times, usually from different angles, and this is done well because the issues are complex, and Newmyer presents them in an easy to read comprehensible manner. He introduces us to the some dozen personalities and describes their views in a memorable fashion. The issues that I described above were the fathers of many sub-issues, such as what is treason, what actually happened that could be proved. Newmyer makes the legal issues crystal clear and the fact vivid.
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
"Unto us the tale is told of thy day of trial."
Jan 28 2013
By Leonard Fleisig
- Published on Amazon.com
Format:Paperback|Amazon Vine™ Review
John Greenleaf Whittier
There have been dozens of "trials of the century" since the founding of the republic. Be it the O.J. Simpson trial, that of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, or the impeachment trials of Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson, these trials (for good or ill) captured the public imagination and bombarded us with breathless wall-to-wall media coverage. But of all these trials the first great American `show-trial', the trial of Aaron Burr may be the one that had the longest and most permanent impact on the American `justice system'. R. Kent Newmyer's "The Treason Trial of Aaron Burr" sets out to tell not just the story of this trial and its legal machinations but to also put that trial in the social and political context of the times. It is no exaggeration to say that this trial saw America coming to terms with the new Constitution that governed it and it set the stage, in good part, for two hundred years of criminal and Constitutional jurisprudence that followed it. Newmyer has done an exemplary job and he has created a book that it is as entertaining as it is informative.
The treason trial of Aaron Burr pitted the might and power of a sitting President, Thomas Jefferson against his former Vice President, the tarnished and diminished Aaron Burr. The chare was treason as defined in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution. (Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.) Exercising, rather injudiciously, the prerogative of office, Jefferson not only publicly accused Burr of treason but repeatedly pronounced him guilty. The hyper-partisan media of the day had a field day with the charge and subsequent trial. The public at large sided with Jefferson and Burr was pretty much tried and convicted well before his trial in Richmond, Virginia got started. The only thing standing between Burr and the gallows was Burr and his trial team (the legal superstars of their day and the elite of the Virginia bar) and Chief Justice John Marshall.
Chief Justice Marshall had already incurred the eternal wrath of Jefferson subsequent to his decision in Marbury v. Madison, which Jefferson took as a personal affront to his power as President. Marshall was not acting as a Supreme Court Justice for this trial. Rather, as was the custom of the time, he was `riding circuit' and sitting as a trial judge. The aspect of the book that held the most interest for me were the legal and evidentiary questions, issues of first impression that Marshal had to deal with as the trial progressed.
As an initial matter, Marshall had to decide exactly what the Constitutional definition of treason actually meant. This was no easy task as the provision originated with certain aspects of English law that the new Republic seemed incline to distance them from. Specifically, the prosecution (Jefferson's dream-team) called for the application of the English doctrine of `constructive treason' a very broad and amorphous definition that the English crown and prosecutors had often used in oppressive and extra-legal ways. Burr and his attorneys called for a very strict interpretation of the text that treason meant the physical act of levying war against the United States. No matter Burr's intent, there is nothing in the public record or the historical record establishing that the rag-tag band of men ostensibly gathered to attack Spanish-Mexico in the event of a U.S. war with Spain had done anything approaching a war-like act.
Second, Marshal had to make a critical evidentiary ruling. The prosecution's direct case against Burr was weak. However they were prepared to introduce a lot of testimony as to Burr's character and a whole host of bad deeds he had done in the past that it thought tended to prove Burr's guilt in this matter.
Marshall's decisions with regard to treason and evidence set a standard that trial courts have followed ever since. Basically, when it comes to criminal accusations, statutes are to be read literally for the plain meaning. They cannot be construed in some amorphous fashion that can be shaped to fit around a certain set of facts. As to his evidentiary decision, today's rules of evidence still track Marshal's ruling: the prejudice of an accused's prior bad acts unrelated to the crime he is charge with is too great to allow into evidence. There are exceptions to this rule of course but Marshal set the foundation.
As a final note, the fact that I appreciated certain legal aspects of this book should not detract from the fact that this book is valuable not just to people in that profession. On the contrary, although meticulously researched and annotated, "The Treason Trial of Aaron Burr" is accessible and should be enjoyed by anyone with an interest in the early days of our Republic and/or the history and development of our Constitution. The book, like the trial itself, reads like a thriller even if you know the outcome.
Highly recommended. L. Fleisig
There have been dozens of "trials of the century" since the founding of the republic. Be it the O.J. Simpson trial, that of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, or the impeachment trials of Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson, these trials (for good or ill) captured the public imagination and bombarded us with breathless wall-to-wall media coverage. But of all these trials the first great American `show-trial', the trial of Aaron Burr may be the one that had the longest and most permanent impact on the American `justice system'. R. Kent Newmyer's "The Treason Trial of Aaron Burr" sets out to tell not just the story of this trial and its legal machinations but to also put that trial in the social and political context of the times. It is no exaggeration to say that this trial saw America coming to terms with the new Constitution that governed it and it set the stage, in good part, for two hundred years of criminal and Constitutional jurisprudence that followed it. Newmyer has done an exemplary job and he has created a book that it is as entertaining as it is informative.
The treason trial of Aaron Burr pitted the might and power of a sitting President, Thomas Jefferson against his former Vice President, the tarnished and diminished Aaron Burr. The chare was treason as defined in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution. (Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.) Exercising, rather injudiciously, the prerogative of office, Jefferson not only publicly accused Burr of treason but repeatedly pronounced him guilty. The hyper-partisan media of the day had a field day with the charge and subsequent trial. The public at large sided with Jefferson and Burr was pretty much tried and convicted well before his trial in Richmond, Virginia got started. The only thing standing between Burr and the gallows was Burr and his trial team (the legal superstars of their day and the elite of the Virginia bar) and Chief Justice John Marshall.
Chief Justice Marshall had already incurred the eternal wrath of Jefferson subsequent to his decision in Marbury v. Madison, which Jefferson took as a personal affront to his power as President. Marshall was not acting as a Supreme Court Justice for this trial. Rather, as was the custom of the time, he was `riding circuit' and sitting as a trial judge. The aspect of the book that held the most interest for me were the legal and evidentiary questions, issues of first impression that Marshal had to deal with as the trial progressed.
As an initial matter, Marshall had to decide exactly what the Constitutional definition of treason actually meant. This was no easy task as the provision originated with certain aspects of English law that the new Republic seemed incline to distance them from. Specifically, the prosecution (Jefferson's dream-team) called for the application of the English doctrine of `constructive treason' a very broad and amorphous definition that the English crown and prosecutors had often used in oppressive and extra-legal ways. Burr and his attorneys called for a very strict interpretation of the text that treason meant the physical act of levying war against the United States. No matter Burr's intent, there is nothing in the public record or the historical record establishing that the rag-tag band of men ostensibly gathered to attack Spanish-Mexico in the event of a U.S. war with Spain had done anything approaching a war-like act.
Second, Marshal had to make a critical evidentiary ruling. The prosecution's direct case against Burr was weak. However they were prepared to introduce a lot of testimony as to Burr's character and a whole host of bad deeds he had done in the past that it thought tended to prove Burr's guilt in this matter.
Marshall's decisions with regard to treason and evidence set a standard that trial courts have followed ever since. Basically, when it comes to criminal accusations, statutes are to be read literally for the plain meaning. They cannot be construed in some amorphous fashion that can be shaped to fit around a certain set of facts. As to his evidentiary decision, today's rules of evidence still track Marshal's ruling: the prejudice of an accused's prior bad acts unrelated to the crime he is charge with is too great to allow into evidence. There are exceptions to this rule of course but Marshal set the foundation.
As a final note, the fact that I appreciated certain legal aspects of this book should not detract from the fact that this book is valuable not just to people in that profession. On the contrary, although meticulously researched and annotated, "The Treason Trial of Aaron Burr" is accessible and should be enjoyed by anyone with an interest in the early days of our Republic and/or the history and development of our Constitution. The book, like the trial itself, reads like a thriller even if you know the outcome.
Highly recommended. L. Fleisig
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
An interesting story given a comprehensive exposition in Mr. Newmyer's excellent book
Dec 17 2012
By Paul Brooks
- Published on Amazon.com
Format:Paperback|Amazon Vine™ Review
On January 18, 1807 President Jefferson made an extraordinary and startling declaration: his former Vice-President, Aaron Burr, was guilty of treason. This statement was made in a public forum the U.S. Congress, was based upon a secret letter from a notorious fraud James Wilkinson and the guilty verdict pronounced prior to any legal proceedings whatsoever.
Eventually Burr was brought to trial in Richmond. Much to the vexation of the "rush to judgment" President his old nemesis John Marshall was the presiding judge.
The how and why of this most interesting story is given a comprehensive exposition in Mr. Newmyer's excellent book "The Treason Trial of Aaron Burr". This reader has no legal training so I did find some sections on interpretation of the laws and trial procedures somewhat dry going but overall the author presents a very readable account of the trial and background concerning the murky accusations brought against Burr.
Aaron Burr is one of two individuals from the revolutionary period (the other being Benedict Arnold) that because of their unsavory reputation shed an off angle lights on events and give us a decidedly new perspective on how things transpired. If this subject interests you I would suggest your read this very interesting book.
Eventually Burr was brought to trial in Richmond. Much to the vexation of the "rush to judgment" President his old nemesis John Marshall was the presiding judge.
The how and why of this most interesting story is given a comprehensive exposition in Mr. Newmyer's excellent book "The Treason Trial of Aaron Burr". This reader has no legal training so I did find some sections on interpretation of the laws and trial procedures somewhat dry going but overall the author presents a very readable account of the trial and background concerning the murky accusations brought against Burr.
Aaron Burr is one of two individuals from the revolutionary period (the other being Benedict Arnold) that because of their unsavory reputation shed an off angle lights on events and give us a decidedly new perspective on how things transpired. If this subject interests you I would suggest your read this very interesting book.
›
Go to Amazon.com to see all 15 reviews
4.9 out of 5 stars
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
- Books > History > Americas > United States > 19th Century
- Books > History > United States > 19th Century
- Books > Law > Criminal Law
- Books > New & Used Textbooks > Humanities > History > United States
- Books > New & Used Textbooks > Law > Criminal Law
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Current Events > Conspiracy Theories
Feedback
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
