Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 2 P20 ppsx

window, burglary was not committed. The same rule applied when a door or window was partially open even though it was necessary to open it further in order to enter. The rationale underlying this rule was that one who failed to secure his or her dwelling was not entitled to the protection of the law. A majority of states no longer follow this rule and consider breaking to be the slightest application of force to gain entry through a partially accessible opening. When entry is gained by a MISREPRESENTATION of identity or by any other trick, it is called constructive breaking, which satisfies the break- ing requirement of burglary. However, if a person, such as a servant, has authority to enter, there is no breaking unless he or she breaks into and enters an unauthorized area. Under the common law, the breaking had to occur immediately before the time of entry. Most jurisdictions that retain the breaking element are in agreement; in others, the break- ing can occur during a REASONABLE TIME before the entry. Some jurisdictions have completely eliminated the element of breaking from the statutory definition of burglary, while others require it for one degree of burglary but not another. Entry In the course of a burglary, entry is the act that follows the breaking. Literally, it occurs when there is physical intrusion into another’s dwelling or building by any part of the intruder’s body. A momentary intrusion will suffice. When a thief kicks open a window to gain access to a dwelling, the momentary insertion of the foot constitutes an entry. When an instrument is used to gain access to a dwelling, the intrusion of the instrument is not an entry unless it is used to accomplish the intended felony. If the instrument is used to take something from inside the building, there is an entry sufficient for burglary. An entry may be constructive. In other words, it is not always required that the thief enter the dwelling. If he or she directs another person not legally capable of committing the offense, such as a child, to enter, then the entry is imputed to the thief. In jurisdictions where breaking is an element of burglary, there must be causation between the breaking and entry. Although the acts may occur at separate times depending upon statute, the entry must follow from the breaking. Where a hole is drilled into a wall on one day and entry occurs a few days later, there is a causal link between the breaking and entry. Dwelling At common law, the entry had to be into the dwelling of another to constitute the offense. A dwelling was defined as a house or mansion where one normally sleeps, although it was not necessary that it be occupied at the time of entry. Structures and premises immediately surrounding the dwelling, such as an outhouse or a yard, were also protected since they were considered part of the dwelling. A dwelling had to be a place of human habitation and occupancy. A storehouse pro- tected by a nightwatchman was not a dwelling even if he occasionally slept in it. If, however, it was within the immediate surroundings of a dwelling, it would be treated as a dwelling for purposes of burglary. In the early 2000s, most jurisdictions have expanded the common-law requirement that the offense take place in a dwelling. There is no jurisdiction that retains this requirement for all degrees of burglary. Under modern statutes, the offense can occur in any enclosed structure, regardless of whether it is used for habitation. Nighttime The requirement that the breaking and entering occur at night was an essential element of the offense at common law. Sunrise and sunset were not the means of determining night and day. The proper test was whether the countenance of a human could be discerned by natural light. Many jurisdictions no longer require that the offense occur at night. Some states have retained it for higher degrees of the offense, but do not require it for all degrees. Under statutes retaining the nighttime element, it is defined as occurring 30 minutes before sunrise or 30 minutes after sunset. It is not necessary that all acts be done on the same night. If the breaking and entering is done one night and the felony is committed a few nights later, the offense is committed. Intent Under the common law, an intent to commit a felony at the time of breaking and entering into the dwelling was an essential element of burglary. Since LARCENY was a felony at common law, an intent to commit a larceny would suffice. Statutes vary from one jurisdic- tion to another. An intent to commit a felony is no longer required for all grades of the offense. In some states an intent to commit any crime GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 178 BURGLARY will suffice. Man y states have retained the felony requirement for higher grades of the offense. Absent this intent element, a breaking and entry might be a trespass, but not be a burglary. If a defense to the underlying crime or felony is sufficiently established, there can be no conviction for burglary. For example, if a person charged with burglary is accused of larceny and has a sufficient defense to the larceny charge, then there is no burglary. Degrees of the Offense Some jurisdictions have a statutory scheme under which the offense is divided into degrees. These types of statutes frequently impose heavier penalties when the offense involves the use of force or WEAPONS. Under one such statute, burglary in the THIRD DEGREE is committed by a person KNOWINGLY entering or remaining un- lawfully in a building with an intent to commit a crime therein. When the same offense is committed with explosives or deadly weapons, or when it results in physical injury to a person who is not a participant in the crime, it is burglary in the first degree, for which there is a greater penalty. IMPRISONMENT is the usual punishment for burglary. Under statutes in many states, the severity of the sentence is determined by the degree of the burglary. FURTHER READINGS Allen, Michael. 2005. Textbook on Criminal Law. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Cromwell, Paul F., and James N. Olson. 2003. Breaking and Entering: Burglars and Burglary. Florence, KY: Wadsworth. Smith, J.C. 1997. Law of Theft. New York: LexisNexis. Thomas, D.A. 2003. “Domestic Burglary—Sentencing Guidelines.” Criminal Law Review (March). v BURKE, EDMUND Edmund Burke was an orator, philosophical writer, political theorist, and member of Parlia- ment who helped shape political thought in England and the United States during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Burke was born January 12, 1729, in Dublin, Ireland, to a Protestant father and a Roman Catholic mother. His father, a prosperous Dublin attorney, was cold and authorita rian, and the two did not enjoy a close relationship. After graduating from Trinity College, Dublin, in 1750, Burke traveled to England to study law in accord with his father’s wishes. However, he did not progress in his legal studies, and he Edmund Burke 1729–1797 ▼▼ ▼▼ 17251725 18001800 17751775 17501750 ❖❖ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ 1729 Born, Dublin, Ireland 1756 A Vindication of Natural Society published anonymously 1759 Founded the Annual Register 1765–66 Elected to Parliament; served as private secretary to the Marquis of Rockingham, the prime minister 1776 American colonies declared independence from Great Britain 1774–80 Served again in Parliament as representative from Bristol 1790 Reflections on the Revolution in France published 1797 Died, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, England Edmund Burke. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ALL GOVERNMENT— INDEED, EVERY HUMAN BENEFIT AND ENJOYMENT , EVERY VIRTUE AND EVERY PRUDENT ACT —IS FOUNDED ON COMPROMISE AND BARTER . —EDMUND BURKE GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION BURKE, EDMUND 179 eventually abandoned the law in favor of a literary career. In 1756 Burke published two philosophical treatises, A Vindication of Natural Society and A Philosophical Enquiry into the Originof Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. These and other works launched Burke’s career as a critic of social and political issues. Burke became a member of the literary circle headed by Samuel Johnson, the English author, scholar, and critic. In 1759 Burke founded the Annual Register, ayearlysurveyof world affairs to which he contributed until 1788. Realizing that the literary life would not pay enough to support a family, Burke entered politics. In 1765 he was appointed private secretary to the Marquis of Rockingham, Eng- land’s prime minister and a member of the WHIG PARTY , marking the beginning of a lifelong alliance between Burke and Rockin gham and the Whigs. Burke was also elected to Parliament in 1765. In 1766 Rockingham lost the premiership. Burke was offered employment with the new adminis- tration, but chose to remain with the Whig opposition. “I believe in any body of men in England I should have been in the minority,” he said. “I have always been in the minority.” Burke believed strongly in opposition poli- tics. Having a party that acts as a watchdog for the INCUMBENT party is the best way, he felt, to avoid corruption and ABUSE OF POWER.Asa member of the opposition, Burke could do what he did best: criticize the government for what he considered unjust or unwise policies. He disagreed with England’s policies in North America and urged the government to abolish the tea duty imposed on the colonies. “All government—indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act— is founded on compromise and barter,” he said in 1775, in his Speech on Conciliation with America. However, despite his dissatisfaction with English policy, he did not support the American revolutionaries. Although he believed that the British had been overly harsh and tyrannical, he also believed in the legislative superiority of the British Parliament over the colonies. In August, 1776, he expressed his despair over the conflict between England and its North American colonies: “I do not know how to wish success to those whose victory is to separate us from a large and noble part of our empire,” he wrote. “Still less do I wish success to injustice, OPPRESSION, and absurdity. No good can come of any event in this war to any virtuous interest.” Burke vociferously criticized the British government’s policies in Irela nd as well, and decried the poverty and persecution of Catho- lics there. Yet, although his sympathies were clearly with the oppressed and powerless in Ireland, he again opposed revolution and urged moderation on both sides. “I believe there are very few cases which will justify a revolt against the established government of a country, let its constitution be what it will,” he said. Burke’s support for established order, even where it meant support for inequalities, was most evident in his harsh criticism of the French Revolution. “[T]he age of chivalry is gone,” he wrote in Reflections on the Revolution in France. “That of sophisters, economists and calculators has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is gone forever.” According to Burke, the French revolu- tionaries’ only purpose was to destroy all traditional authority and property rights. The result, he predicted, would be anarchy and the emergence of an autocratic ruler whose reign would be worse than any the revolutionaries had seen before. Burke’s prediction proved accurate: the revolution in France led to the Reign of Terror and the regime of Napoleon. In his CONDEMNATION of the French Revolu- tion, Burke presaged American thought on the importance of private property to the preserva- tion of societal harmony. Stephen B. Presser, associate dean and professor at Northwestern University School of Law, wrote that Burke’s attacks on the French, and his spirited defense of private property as a guarantee of order, stability, and prosperity have echoed through the arguments of American judges and statesmen. Burke’s strongest criticism of British policy came in the 1780s when he instigated IMPEACH- MENT proceedings against Warren Hastings, governor-general of India. Burke attacked the British East India Company as unjust and oppressive in its treatment of the Indian people. In his Speech on Opening the ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT of Warren Hastings (1788), Burke asserted his belief that the exercise of arbitrary political power is never justified. “My Lords the King has no arbitrary power to give him [Hastings], your Lordships have not, nor the commons, nor the whole Legislature. We have no arbitrary power to give, because arbitrary GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 180 BURKE, EDMUND power is a thing, which neither any man can hold nor any man can give.” Burke’ s view that political power is held in trust for the benefit of the people is reflected in the basic tenets of U.S. democracy and is at the core of the United States’ republican form of government. Burke has been claimed as a champion of both liberals and conservatives. His denuncia- tion of oppression in India, Ireland, and North America and his staunch opposition to the exercise of arbitrary power endeared him to libertarians and proponents of individual rights. However, his strong faith in established politi- cal, religious, and social institutions , and his fear of reform beyond limitations on sovereign power, reverberate in contemporary conserva- tism. Likewise, his support for CIVIL RIGHTS was tempered with a strong belief in the necessity of individual responsibility. In 1791, he wrote, in A Letter to a Member of the Nation al Assembly, Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in propor- tion as their love to justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Burke was firmly opposed to the substitu- tion of government assistance for individual initiative. In Thoughts and Details on Scarcity (1795), he cautioned against “attempts to feed the people out of the hands of the magistrates.” He seemed to predict the modern quagmire of WELFARE dependency when he wrote, “and having looked to government for bread, on the very first scarcity they will turn and bite the hand that fed them. To avoid that evil, government will redouble the causes of it; and then it will become inveterate and incurable.” The last few years of Burke’s life were marred by the death of his only son, Richard Burke, in 1794. With his wife, Jane Nugent Burke, whom he had married in 1757, Burke had established the harmonious family life he had never known as a child. The premature l oss of his son, and the concomitant demise of Burke’s dreams and plans for the young man’s future, left Burke disconsolate. Although he continued his activities in politics, particularly in the formation of the Irish government, his personal life was clouded with disappointment and bitterness. Burke died three years after his son, on July 9, 1797; yet two hundred years after his death, his philosophies continued to reso- nate on both sides of the Atlantic. FURTHER READINGS Crowe, Ian, ed. 1997. Edmund Burke: His Life and Legacy. Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts. Kirk, Russell. 2001. The Conservative Mind from Burke to Eliot. 7th ed. Chicago: Regnery Books. ———. 1997. Edmund Burke: A Genius Reconsidered. Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Kramnick, Isaac, ed. 1999. The Portable Edmund Burke. New York: Penguin. Lambert, Elizabeth R. 2003. Edmund Burke of Beaconsfield. Newark: Univ. of Delaware Press. O’Brien, Conor C. 1994. The Great Melody: A Thematic Biography of Edmund Burke. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. v BURLAMAQUI, JEAN JACQUES Jean Jacques Burlamaqui achieved prominence as a Swiss JURIST and legal author. Burlamaqui was born July 24, 1694. As an educator, Burlamaqui taught legal studies at Geneva; however, his fame is based primarily on his two publications relating to the law: Principes du droit naturel, translated as “Prin- ciples of natural law,” in 1747; and Principes du droit politique, or “Principles of political law,” in 1751. He believed in NATURAL LAW and its ▼▼ ▼▼ 17001700 Jean Jacques Burlamaqui 1694–1748 16751675 17251725 17501750 17751775 ❖ ❖ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ 1694 Born, Geneva, Switzerland 1720 Appointed professor of natural and civil law 1732 George Washington born ◆ 1743 Thomas Jefferson born 1747 Principes du droit naturel (Principles of Natural Law) published 1751 Principes du droit politique (Principles of Political Law) published posthumously 1748 Died, Geneva, Switzerland GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION BURLAMAQUI, JEAN JACQUES 181 relationship to God, human intellect, and innate moral responses, and he viewed natural law as the foundation of domestic and INTERNA- TIONAL LAW . Burlamaqui died April 3, 1748, in Geneva, Switzerland. v BURNET, DAVID GOUVERNEUR David Gouverneur Burnet centered his career efforts in Texas. Burnet was born April 4, 1788, in Newark, New Jersey. Before entering politics, Burnet served under Francisco de Miranda in 1806 in an endeavor to liberate Venezuela from Spain. He also studied law and pursued careers in business and speculation. Burnet relocated to Texas and presided as a Texas district judge in 1834. In 1836 he participated at the Washington-on-the-Brazos Convention, where he drafted the Texas DECLA- RATION OF INDEPENDENCE ; in 1836 he served as the president ad interim of the Republic of Texas. He subsequently resigned, but returned to perform the duties of VICE PRESIDENT. From 1846 to 1847 he acted as the SECRETARY OF STATE of Texas, the first person to hold such a position in the newly formed state. Burnet died December 5, 1870, in Galveston, Texas. v BURR, AARON AARON BURR was a soldier, lawyer, and politician and the third vice PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Burr was born February 6, 1756, in Newark, New Jersey. His family traced its ancestry to the Pilgrims and through hundreds of years of English gentry with many members who were prominent in government and politics. Both his parents died when he was young and he and his sister were raised in comfortable circumstances by their maternal uncle. Bu rr was a bright, charming, handsome, and witty boy who was gifted intellectually but decidedly mischievous and difficult to control. From earliest childhood he showed ambition, deter- mination, and leadership. Burr entered the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) as a sophomore in 1769 at the age of thirteen and graduated summa cum laude three years later. He then enrolled in LITCHFIELD LAW SCHOOL (Connecticut ), which was run by his brother-in-law and former tutor, Tapping Reeve. However, the Revolution- ary War and his desire to be a part of it interrupted his studies. Burr rose swiftly through the ranks of the revolutionary army, displaying daring, energy, courage, and imagination. His small stature and pampered upbringing belied an internal strength that surprised many who knew him. Accompanying Colonel Benedict Arnold’s troops in their expedition to Quebec, he endured cold, hunger, and illness. He was made an officer in the Continental Army and soon served with General GEORGE WASHINGTON. Burr resigned his Army commission in 1779. He resumed the study of law in 1780 and was admitted to the bar in 1782. Later in ▼▼ ▼▼ 18001800 David Gouverneur Burnet 1788–1870 17751775 18251825 18501850 18751875 ❖ ❖ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ 1788 Born, Newark, N.J. 1806 Joined Miranda expedition to emancipate Venezuela from Spain 1817 Visited Texas; lived with Indian tribe for a time 1826 Immigrated permanently to Texas 1834 Became Texas district judge 1836 Helped draft Texas Declaration of Independence; became president ad interim of the new Republic 1838–40 Served as vice president of the Republic of Texas 1845 Texas admitted to the union 1848 Mexican War ended by treaty in which U.S. gained territory from Colorado to California 1846 Became secretary of state of Texas; Mexican war began 1861–65 U.S. Civil War 1870 Died, Galveston, Tx. 1866 Elected to U.S. Senate but Texan delegation rejected by Congress (due to former Confederate ties) GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 182 BURNET, DAVID GOUVERNEUR 1782 he married Theodosia Prevost, a widow ten years his senior, and the following year their only child, a daughter also named Theodosia, was born. In 1789 Burr was appointed attorney general of the state of New York and in 1790 he was elected a U.S. senator, defeating General Philip Schuyler, the father-in-law of ALEXANDER HAMILTON. This was the beginning of a bitter rivalry with Hamilton that would come to a ruinous conclu- sion years later. Burr served in the Senate for six years. In 1796 the voters turned against him and elected his former antagonist, General Schuyler. Burr attributed his loss to Hamilton’s assiduous efforts to undermine his support and reputation. After losing his Senate seat, Burr served a short time in the New York assembly, before entering the presidential race of 1800. He and his opponent, THOMAS JEFFERSON, received the same number of votes in the ELECTORAL COLLEGE, and the election went to the House of Representatives for resolution. Burr and his supporters were unabashedly ambitious in their zeal to win the office. Burr’s nemesis Hamilton stepped into the fray, announcing his support for Jefferson and criticizing Burr. Finally, through clever manipulation of the voting process, Hamilton secured the presidency for Jefferson and Burr automatically became VICE PRESIDENT . As a result of this peculiar election Congress passed the TWELFTH AMENDMENT, which mandated separate balloting for president and vice president. Burr’s ruthless and opportunistic ambition caused many of his colleagues to shun him both professionally and socially. President Jefferson held him at arm’ s length, and others in the administration treated him like an outsider. Burr blamed his failure to secure the top office largely on Hamilton and he brooded over perceived injustices. Having lost his beloved wife in 1794, Burr was left with only his daughter, whom he idolized. He devoted as much time and energy as possible to her education and her grooming. However, the young la dy was moving Aaron Burr. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ▼▼ ▼▼ 17751775 Aaron Burr 1756–1836 17501750 18001800 18251825 18501850 ❖ ❖ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆◆ ◆ 1756 Born, Newark, N.J. 1772 Graduated from the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) 1775–79 Served in the revolutionary army 1789 Appointed attorney general of New York state 1783 American Revolution ended 1790 Elected to U.S. Senate, defeated General Philip Schuyler, father-in-law of Alexander Hamilton 1796 Lost reelection to General Schuyler 1801 Became vice president under Thomas Jefferson when House of Representatives broke electoral college tie in Jefferson's favor 1812 Returned to United States 1807 Acquitted of treason in conquering venture; went into exile in Europe 1806 Failed in attempt to conquer land in western U.S. and Mexico 1804 Killed long-time political rival Alexander Hamilton in a gun duel 1836 Died, Princeton, N.J. LAW IS WHATEVER IS BOLDLY ASSERTED AND PLAUSIBLY MAINTAINED . —AARON BURR GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION BURR, AARON 183 into adulthood and a life of her own. In 1801, against her father’s wishes, she married Joseph Alston, of South Carolina, and moved to the Palmetto State, leaving Burr alone in Washing- ton, D.C. Toward the end of his term as vice president, Burr ran for governor of New York but was defeated. During the campaign Hamil- ton again expressed his distrust of Burr and made other disparaging comments about him. Feeling that his honor had been impugned, Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel. Although Hamilton tried to defuse the conflict, Burr was determined to force a CONFRONTATION. The two men met at 7:00 a.m. on July 7, 1804. Burr was an excellent marksman, and he killed Hamilton with the first shot. In an ensuing public outcry, Burr was indicted for MURDER. He escaped to his daughter’s home in South Carolina until the furor died down and eventually returned to Washington, D.C., to complete his term as vice president. Burr came to realize that his aspirations to the presidency had been destroyed. His political career in ruins, he left Washington, D.C., and traveled west to explore frontier territory. He also concocted an elaborate CONSPIRACY that was to be his final political undoing. Though complete details of the scheme have never been fully discovered, Bur r apparently intended to United States v. Aaron Burr I B n 1807 Aaron Burr was prosecuted for tre ason and high misdemeanor in the federal circuit court in Richmond, Virginia, with U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall presiding as a trial judge. Despite evidence that Burr had been plotting to raise a rebellion and overtake a portion of the western territories in the United States and other evidence that Burr was planning to lead an unauthorized invasion of Mexico, the defenda nt was acquitted by a jury on both t he treason and high misdemeanor charges. Aaron Burr served as the nation’sthirdvice president from 1801–1805, having lost the 1800 presidential election after the U.S. House of Representatives b roke an electoral deadlock by naming Thomas Jefferson presi dent and Burr vice president. Al though Burr contemplated running for president again four years later, those ambitions came to an end when he was indicted for murd ering Alexander Hamilton in a duel on July 11, 1804. Later that same month, Bu rr, now disaffected with American politics, met w ith Britain’sministerto the United States, Anthony Merry, who subsequent- ly reported to his government that Burr “was endeavoring to effect a separation of the western part of the United States” via military action. In early 1805 Burr, while still acting as the vice president of the United States, contacted Spanish minister, MarquesdeCasaYrujo,todiscussthesame subject. The governmen ts of both Great Britain and Spain declined to offer Burr an y financial or military assistance. When hi s term as vice president expired, Burr headed west to raise a military force that would either invade Mexico or forcefully sever the southwestern United States into an independent nation led by Burr himself. The former vice president first met with another malcontent, Herman Blennerhassett, on Blennerhassett Island, located in the Ohio River, then part of Virginia. A year later Burr joined forces with General James Wilkinson on Blennerhassett Island, where they assembled a force of unknown size to carry out Burr’splan.Burr left the island before any actions were taken to implement the plan. After Burr departed, Wilkinson had second thoughts about the plan and informed President Jefferson of their rebellious preparations. Jefferson issued a proclamation call ing for the suppression of the conspiracy. Federal authorities arrested Burr in March1807whilehewastryingtofleeintoSpanish Florida. The former vice president was brought back to Virginia where he stood trial before Chief Justice John Marshall (early Supreme Court justices performed double duty as appellate judges on the nation’s high court and as trial judges in their GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 184 BURR, AARON lead the western states in an INSURRECTION against the federal government. After the states seceded, he planned to install himself as the head of a newly created republic. He then intended to conquer Texas and Mexico. In October 1806, President Jefferson issued a PROCLAMATION denouncing Burr’s venture. On January 14, 1807, Burr was arrested in Mississippi on a charge of TREASON. He escaped, but was later apprehended in Alabama. Burr’s trial began in May 1807, and lasted six months. He was eventually acquitted but his political life was over. Burr spent the next several years in exile in Europe, where he endured poverty, humiliation, and degradation. In 1812 he quietly returned to the United States, slipping into Boston wearing a disguise and using an assumed name. After a time he resumed a somewhat normal life and opened a law office in New York. Burr’s prospects seemed to be brightening when he was dealt two crushing personal blows. First, he learned that his only grandchild, Aaron Burr Alston, had died before Burr returned to the United States. A few months later his beloved daughter perished in a shipwreck while traveling from South Carolina to New York to visit Burr. Burr was devastated by these losses. A wave of sympathy tempered public opinion toward him, but he was still shunned by those in designated circuit court) and state trial judge Cyrus Griffin. Bail was set at $5,000. After hearing testimony from Wilkinson, the grand jury for the Virginia federal circuit court indicted Burr on June 24, 1807. The indictme nt charged him with one count of treason and one count of high misdemeanor for “unlawfully, falsely, maliciously, and traitorously intending to raise and levy war” against the United States. The trial began on August 10, 1807, and ended less than a month later, on September 1, 1807. Jefferson, motivated in part by personal vindictive- ness against Burr, declared in a special message to Congress during the trial that Burr’s guilt had been “placed beyond question.” Jefferson then gave George Hay, the U.S. attorney in charge of the prosecution, incriminating evidence to offer against Burr. Jefferson also dangled pardons as entice- ments to any co-conspirators who agreed to turn sta te’s evidence. But the prosecution had two major problems. First, the linchpin of the treason charge was the alleged overt act of assembling a military force on Blennerhassett Island for the purpose of waging war against the United States. The indictment said this act occurred on December 10, 1806, a d ate on which a ll defense and prose cution witnesses agreed that Burr was not on the island, but instead hundreds of miles away. Second, Chief Justice Marshall instructed the jurors that they could stil l convict B urr of treason for being an coconspirator to the crime, so long as at least two witnesses provided testimony that some overt act was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. But General Wilkinson was the only witness who testified as to Burr’s involvement in the alleged crime. The jury returned a verdict of “not guilty” after deliberating for only 25 minutes. On September 9, 1807, the trial for the high misdemeanor began, again with Chief Justice Marshall and Cyrus Griffin presiding. Prosecutor Hay called more than 50 witnesses to t estify against the defendant. But the jury again acquitted Burr. HaythenfiledamotiontoprosecuteBurrfor treason in Ohio, alleging that the defendant conspired to levy war against the U.S. government in that jurisdiction as wel l. Marshall listened to five weeks of testimony concerning the motion and then on October 20 ruled that Burr coul d only be tri ed for misdemeanor charges in Ohio. Finally, H ay ceased efforts at prosecuting Burr any further. FURTHER READINGS Beirne, Francis. 1959. Shout Treason: The Trial of Aaron Burr. New York: Hastings House. Melton, Bucker F., Jr. 2001. Aaron Burr: Conspiracy to Treason. New York: Wiley. Vail, Philip. 1973. The Turbulent Life of Aaron Burr: The Great American Rascal. New York: Award Books. CROSS REFERENCE Treason. B GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION BURR, AARON 185 prominence. He continued his law practice, enjoyed a small circle of supportive friends, and even remarried, though the union was short- lived and unhappy. He quietly and unobtru- sively engaged in numerous altruistic and philanthropic ventures, including providing for the education of young men and women of limited resources and adopting an orphan who lived with him until late adolesc ence. During the la st few years of his life, Burr suffered a series of strokes. At first, he rebounded completely, but each successive episode left him weaker. He died September 14, 1836, and was buried beside his parents and grandfather in Princeton, New Jersey. FURTHER READINGS Kennedy, Roger G. 2000. Burr, Hamilton, and Jefferson: A Study in Character. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Lomask, Milton. 1982. Aaron Burr. 2 vols. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Melton, Buckner F., Jr. 2001. Aaron Burr: Conspiracy to Treason. Indianapolis: Wiley. Vail, Philip. 1973. The Great American Rascal. New York: Hawthorn Books. v BURTON, HAROLD HITZ Harold Hitz Burton served as a Supreme Court justice during the years the Court outlawed SEGREGATION. Burton was born June 22, 1888, in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts. He attended Bowdoin College, where he was elected Phi Beta Kappa, and graduated summa cum laude in 1909. He then entered Harvard Law School where he received his bachelor of laws degree in 1912. He married Selma Florence Smith and the couple set out to take advantage of opportunity in the burgeoning Midwest. They settled in Cleveland where Burton established a successful law practice. Burton serve d in the infantry in France during WORLD WAR I.Herosetotherankof captain and was awarded the Purple Heart. In 1923 he began teaching law at Western Reserve University (now Case Western Reserve University) and he remained on the faculty there until 1925. Burton’s political career began to take shape when he was elected to the Ohio Legislature in Harold Hitz Burton. PHOTOGRAPHY BY OSCAR WHITE. CORBIS. Harold Hitz Burton 1888–1964 ❖ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ❖ 1888 Born, Jamaica Plain, Mass. 1909 Graduated summa cum laude from Bowdoin College 1912 Earned law degree from Harvard Law School 1914 World War I began 1917–18 Fought in World War I; won the Purple Heart 1929 Elected to Ohio State legislature 1935 Elected mayor of Cleveland, Ohio 1940 Elected to U.S. Senate 1939–45 World War II 1945 Nominated to U.S. Supreme Court by President Truman 1950 Wrote opinion in Henderson v. U.S. outlawing segregation in railroad dining cars 1950–53 Korean War 1954 Joined unanimous ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that outlawed segregation in public schools 1964 Died, Washington, D. C. 1961–73 Vietnam War 1958 Retired from the Court ▼▼ ▼▼ 18751875 19251925 19501950 19751975 19001900 ◆ ◆ ◆ THE CONSTITUTION WAS BUILT FOR ROUGH AS WELL AS SMOOTH ROADS . —HAROLD BURTON GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 186 BURTON, HAROLD HITZ 1929. He also acted as chief legal official of Cleveland from 1929 to 1932. In 1935 he was elected mayor of Cleveland and he was returned to office twice. By 1940 Burton’snameand reputation for integrity were well established and he easily won election to the U.S. Senate. He became known in Washington, D.C., as a moderate conservative who advocated U.S. membership in the newly formed UNITED NATIONS. When a vacancy occurred on the Supreme Court in 1945, President HARRY S. TRUMAN, a Demo- crat, was under pressure to name a Republican to fill the slot. Truman did the politically expe- dient thing: he named Burton, a moderate Republican whom he admired and who would likely be replaced in the Senate by a Democrat. Burton was a popular choice. He was confirmed within a day of his nomination with no TESTIMONY heard by the SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE and unanimous approval by the full Senate. Burton was a hardworking, conscientious, dispassionate, and open-minded justice. His moderate conservatism was a unifying influence on a highly fractious court. He was noted for his ability to bridge conflicting factions with narrowly written opinions that settled an issue without taking a philosophical stand. He generally supported states’ rights against inter- ference by the federal government, except where his sensitivity to human suffering was aroused. In 1947 he wrote a vigorous dissent from the Court’s decision to allow Louisiana to execute a prisoner after several previous attempts to execute him had failed. The Court held that the state’s continued efforts to execute the man did not constitute “cruel and unusual” punish- ment. Burton wrote, “It is unthinkable that any state legislature in modern times would enact a statute expressly authorizing CAPITAL PUNISHMENT by repeated applications of an electric current separated by intervals of days or hours until finally death shall result” (Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459, 67 S. Ct. 374, 91 L. Ed. 422 [1947]). Burton’s decisions in antitrust and labor disputes tended to favor corporations and management over unions. He was generally opposed to extending individual rights beyond the letter of the Constitution, but he digressed from that stance in matters of racial segregation and discrimination. A decision he authored in 1950 struck down the practice of confining black passengers in railway dining cars to a separate area. “The curtains, partitions and signs [used to mark that area],” he wrote, “emphasize the artificiality of a difference in treatment which serves only to call attention to racial classifications of passengers holding identical tickets and using the same public dining facility” (Henderson v. U. S., 339 U.S. 816, 70 S. Ct. 843, 94 L. Ed. 1302 [1950]). Burton was also a member of the 1954 Court that unanimously declared that segregation in public schools is unconstitutional ( BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873). Burton was compelled to retire in 1958 because of deteriorating health due to Parkin- son’s disease. He died October 28, 1964, in Washington, D.C. FURTHER READINGS “Harold Hitz Burton.” 2009. Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. Federal Judicial Center. Available online at http:// www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=331; website home page: http://www.fjc.gov (accessed August 27, 2009). Harold Hitz Burton Papers, George J. Mitchell Department of Special Collections, Brunswick, ME: Bowdoin College Library. Schwartz, Bernard. 1995. A History of the Supreme Court. 2d ed. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. CROSS REFERENCE Warren Court. v BUSH, GEORGE HERBERT WALKER George Herbert Walker Bush capped a full and distinguished political career with his election in 1988 as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.Bush became the forty-first chief executive after serving for eight years as the nation’s VICE PRESIDENT under RONALD REAGAN. The most memorable events of his one-term presidency were the Desert Shield and Desert Storm Operations in the Persian Gulf in 1991. Although Bush was enormously popular in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, his stand- ing with the U.S. public plummeted as domestic problems and a sour economy took their toll. In 1992, Bush lost the presidential election to Democratic challenger BILL CLINTON, the governor of Arkansas. Clinton’s campaign offered a promise of change and a “new covenant” between citizens and government. Born June 12, 1924, in Milton, Massachu- setts, Bush was the son of Prescott Sheldon Bush, an international banker and U.S. senator from Connecticut, and Dorothy Walker Bush, the daughter of a wealthy St. Louis businessman. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION BUSH, GEORGE HERBERT WALKER 187 . (Principles of Natural Law) published 1751 Principes du droit politique (Principles of Political Law) published posthumously 1748 Died, Geneva, Switzerland GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E. to commit any crime GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 178 BURGLARY will suffice. Man y states have retained the felony requirement for higher grades of the offense. Absent this. Died, Princeton, N.J. LAW IS WHATEVER IS BOLDLY ASSERTED AND PLAUSIBLY MAINTAINED . —AARON BURR GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION BURR, AARON 183 into adulthood and a life of her own. In