Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
Page Number: 10

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

The trial that followed was “the greatest spectacle in the
short  history  of  the  republic,”  complete  with  a  Founder-
studded cast.  N. Isenberg, Fallen Founder: The Life of Aa-
ron Burr 351 (2007).  People flocked to Richmond to watch,
massing in tents and covered wagons along the banks of the 
James  River,  nearly  doubling  the  town’s  population  of 
5,000.  Burr’s  defense  team  included  Edmund  Randolph
and Luther Martin, both former delegates at the Constitu-
tional Convention and renowned advocates.  Chief Justice 
John Marshall, who had recently squared off with the Jef-
ferson administration in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 
(1803), presided as Circuit Justice for Virginia.  Meanwhile 
Jefferson,  intent  on  conviction,  orchestrated  the  prosecu-
tion  from  afar,  dedicating  Cabinet  meetings  to  the  case, 
peppering  the  prosecutors  with  directions,  and  spending
nearly $100,000 from the Treasury on the five-month pro-
ceedings.

In the lead-up to trial, Burr, taking aim at his accusers, 
moved  for  a  subpoena  duces  tecum  directed  at  Jefferson. 
The  draft  subpoena  required  the  President  to  produce  an
October 21, 1806 letter from Wilkinson and accompanying
documents, which Jefferson had referenced in his message 
to Congress.  The prosecution opposed the request, arguing
that a President could not be subjected to such a subpoena
and that the letter might contain state secrets.  Following
four days of argument, Marshall announced his ruling to a
packed chamber.

The  President,  Marshall  declared,  does  not  “stand  ex-
empt from the general provisions of the constitution” or, in
particular, the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee that those ac-
cused have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses for 
their defense.  United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 33–34 
(No.  14,692d)  (CC  Va.  1807).    At  common  law  the  “single
reservation” to the duty to testify in response to a subpoena
was “the case of the king,” whose “dignity” was seen as “in-
compatible”  with  appearing  “under  the  process  of  the