Treason to a US State?

[Berkut]

The only question is whether the state of Virginia could hold a non-resident accountable to a charge of treason - given that the Brown was a US citizen, one can certainly argue that he does in fact owe some measure of allegiance to the states that make up the US.

That doesn't make a lot of sense.  If a state is going to have a treason law (which is silly to begin with but there you go), then logically it would apply only to the citizens of that State.  If the argument is that US citizenship entails citizenship or allegiance to every state independently (not true but assumed for the sake of argument), then state treason laws should be pre-empted and all acts of treason against a state could be tried under the federal treason laws.

You are just re-iterating the reason why state specific treason laws are a bit silly.

I agree that they are silly, but I don't see it as any more silly to say that a US citizen does in fact owe some measure of allegiance to each state as well as allegiance to the US as a whole. In fact, if you remove the legal argument, and limit it to more of a philosophical stance, I would not even argue against the claim that "Each US citizen owes some measure of loyalty to each state that makes up the Union, regardless of whether or not they are actual inhabitants of each state".

Oddly enough, it is a stance that kind of argues AGAINST strict states rights really, since it is basically saying that your allegiance is bound up in the whole, so you particular residency is not important to a charge of treason against a particular state.

But really, the entire thing is a bit silly - but given the silly idea that you can commit treason against a state, as opposed to the federal government, I don't think that

1. The fact that he was not a resident/citizen of Virginia means he cannot commit treason against Virginia. Virginia is part of the Union, and therefore all citizens of the union owe it some measure of allegiance.
and
2. The fact that the target of the raid was federal property might suggest that the Feds should have primary jurisdiction, but the crime of treason was (presumably) based on his attempt to incite insurrection. The raid itself was simply a means to that end. Therefore, again, I don't think it is problematic that he be tried for treason in Virginia for the attempt to incite a slave rebellion.

[Berkut]

Maybe because his trial wasnt fair? That the outcome was decided before he even set foot in the courtroom?? How about that?

The outcome being decided before he stepped into the courtroom doesn't mean that the trial was not fair. He was most certainly guilty, so the outcome being that he was in fact found guilty is hardly evidence of a sham trial.

[grumbler]

Having said that, I also don't see the basis of the "sham" argument; whatever the dubious nature of the state treason charge, what defense could he have had to ordinary murder charges?

The defense to murder charges was that Brown killed no one, and never planned to kill anyone.  Generally, innocence is a defense against a charge.

Now, one can argue that he wasn't innocent because unlawful killing was a predictable outcome of the actions he took, but given that the jury took all of 45 minutes to reach a verdict in such a complex case, I don't think "sham" is beyond the pale.

[Berkut]

Having said that, I also don't see the basis of the "sham" argument; whatever the dubious nature of the state treason charge, what defense could he have had to ordinary murder charges?

The defense to murder charges was that Brown killed no one, and never planned to kill anyone.  Generally, innocence is a defense against a charge.

Now, one can argue that he wasn't innocent because unlawful killing was a predictable outcome of the actions he took, but given that the jury took all of 45 minutes to reach a verdict in such a complex case, I don't think "sham" is beyond the pale.

Is it really that complex?

He attacked a federal outpost, and people were killed. Whether he pulled the trigger or not I would not think is actually relevant. At least, I don't think it is.

I am not sure how long a jury has to deliberate before a trial becomes non-sham though. If it all happened in the exact same manner, but the jury took another hour, would that be enough?

[Eddie Teach]

Didn't he kill people in Kansas too?

[The Minsky Moment]

Having said that, I also don't see the basis of the "sham" argument; whatever the dubious nature of the state treason charge, what defense could he have had to ordinary murder charges?

The defense to murder charges was that Brown killed no one, and never planned to kill anyone.  Generally, innocence is a defense against a charge.

You don't have to pull a trigger to be guilty.  If you are involved in the commission of a violent crime and in the course of that crime a confederate commits a murder, you can be guility either as an accessory or on a felony murder charge.

[DontSayBanana]

You don't have to pull a trigger to be guilty.  If you are involved in the commission of a violent crime and in the course of that crime a confederate commits a murder, you can be guility either as an accessory or on a felony murder charge.

Felony, barring plea deals.  The rule is that if a group is involved in the commission of a crime and just one member of the group commits a murder, each member of the group can be charged with that murder.

And Berkut, isn't your argument somewhat saying that you owe a measure of loyalty to the union of the states?  E.g., the federal government?  All you've done is made the case that it should have fallen under interstate jurisdiction.

Legally, VA trying him is a kangaroo court.  There was absolutely no way that they had in personam jurisdiction.  It was a federal locale, and he wasn't a VA resident.

[Strix]

The defense to murder charges was that Brown killed no one, and never planned to kill anyone.  Generally, innocence is a defense against a charge.

You don't have to pull a trigger to be guilty.  If you are involved in the commission of a violent crime and in the course of that crime a confederate commits a murder, you can be guility either as an accessory or on a felony murder charge.
[/quote]

Isn't felony murder for an accessory the way it is used today a somewhat new concept?

[The Minsky Moment]

Accessory liability for criminal acts existed at common law and is of ancient pedigree.

Felony murder laws also have common law antecendents, and start showing up in US statute books in the 19th century.

[grumbler]

Is it really that complex?

I think so.  You obviously do not.

He attacked a federal outpost, and people were killed. Whether he pulled the trigger or not I would not think is actually relevant. At least, I don't think it is.

You are entitled to your opinion, for sure.

I am not sure how long a jury has to deliberate before a trial becomes non-sham though. If it all happened in the exact same manner, but the jury took another hour, would that be enough?

The requirement is that the verdict be based on evidence presented by the prosecution and defense.  I cannot imagine a conscientious jury deciding whether Brown owed allegiance to a state in which he had never resided (I know you have decided this for yourself, but you don't have a jury's responsibility) in 45 minutes, let alone considered all the evidence for all three charges.

But that is just me.  You appear to disagree with the statement that I "don't think "sham" is beyond the pale," and that is your right.

[grumbler]

You don't have to pull a trigger to be guilty.  If you are involved in the commission of a violent crime and in the course of that crime a confederate commits a murder, you can be guility either as an accessory or on a felony murder charge.

Why, yes.  In fact, the part of my post you snipped out made that very point.

If you are involved in the commission of a potentially violent crime and in the course of that crime a confederate commits a murder, you are not automatically guility either as an accessory or on a felony murder charge.  Therefore, a defense is possible.  You asked what defense was possible, and the answer is that, since he didn't actually engage in violence or kill anyone, the prosecution would have to show (and the defense attempt to counter) that murder was a reasonably possible outcome of the illegal actions Brown did take, or whatever standard the law of the time required for accessory or actual murderer (sans actual killings).

[grumbler]

Felony, barring plea deals.  The rule is that if a group is involved in the commission of a crime and just one member of the group commits a murder, each member of the group can be charged with that murder.

I had always thought there were important qualifications to that rule.  Are you arguing, for instance, that if a group of hobos is trespassing on the property of the railroad, and one of them suddenly knifes another one of them, each member of that group can be charged with that murder?

that's not the law as I understand it, but I claim no expertise.

[DontSayBanana]

I had always thought there were important qualifications to that rule.  Are you arguing, for instance, that if a group of hobos is trespassing on the property of the railroad, and one of them suddenly knifes another one of them, each member of that group can be charged with that murder?

that's not the law as I understand it, but I claim no expertise.

As of this moment, I'm no expert, either.  I'm not sure if it applies to the murder of a member of the group itself.  What I do know, though, is that most prosecutors would want not to charge the rest of the group in that case.  Letter of the law aside, there's always some (limited) room for prosecutorial discretion.

[Ed Anger]

Didn't he kill people in Kansas too?

that was just dust in the wind.

[The Minsky Moment]

You don't have to pull a trigger to be guilty.  If you are involved in the commission of a violent crime and in the course of that crime a confederate commits a murder, you can be guility either as an accessory or on a felony murder charge.

Why, yes.  In fact, the part of my post you snipped out made that very point.

If you are involved in the commission of a potentially violent crime and in the course of that crime a confederate commits a murder, you are not automatically guility either as an accessory or on a felony murder charge.  Therefore, a defense is possible.  You asked what defense was possible, and the answer is that, since he didn't actually engage in violence or kill anyone, the prosecution would have to show (and the defense attempt to counter) that murder was a reasonably possible outcome of the illegal actions Brown did take, or whatever standard the law of the time required for accessory or actual murderer (sans actual killings).

Yes that is true, I should have said no good defense was possible.
I agree that the trial appears to have been a sham and that he had no real opportunity to raise a defense.  But I don't think it mattered to the outcome.