## Facts

- Sir Walter Raleigh was prosecuted for high treason in 1603 before a special commission sitting at Winchester Castle.
- The Crown alleged Raleigh joined the “Main Plot” with Henry Brooke, Lord Cobham, to depose (and allegedly kill) King James I and place Lady Arabella Stuart on the throne.
- The indictment further alleged a plan to change England’s religion and to obtain foreign support, including Spanish funds allegedly amounting to 600,000 crowns.
- The Crown’s factual theory was that Raleigh met Cobham at Durham House, encouraged Cobham to negotiate with Spanish intermediaries, and expected to receive a share of the money.
- The prosecution’s principal proof was Cobham’s written statements (a confession and letter) taken before the Privy Council and read to the jury; Cobham did not testify in court.
- Raleigh pleaded not guilty, denied the alleged agreement and money scheme, and repeatedly demanded that Cobham be produced “face to face.”
- The court refused to compel Cobham’s appearance and permitted reliance on the written examinations.
- The Crown also offered layered hearsay through a witness (Dyer) recounting a Lisbon report predicting the king’s death by “Cobham and Raleigh.”
- No in-court witness testified from personal knowledge that Raleigh agreed to commit treason.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant charged with high treason could be convicted principally on a co-conspirator’s out-of-court confession and letter read in court, without producing that accuser as a live witness.
2. Whether multi-level hearsay offered as corroboration could be admitted and treated as probative of the charged conspiracy.
3. Whether the court would recognize any right to confront and cross-examine the principal accuser or to compel the accuser’s presence.

## Decision

- The commission allowed Cobham’s written confession and letter to be read and considered as substantive proof against Raleigh.
- The court declined to produce Cobham for live testimony despite Raleigh’s requests.
- The court permitted the jury to hear and consider corroborative hearsay reporting statements attributed to third parties.
- The jury found Raleigh guilty of high treason.
- Raleigh was sentenced in the statutory form for traitors; execution was postponed, and he remained imprisoned for years before later execution on the basis of the conviction.

## Legal Principles

- In treason prosecutions of the period, ex parte written examinations taken by the Privy Council could be admitted and treated as sufficient evidence, even when the declarant was not produced at trial.
- A defendant’s demand to confront an accuser could be rejected; the proceeding did not recognize a right to face-to-face cross-examination of the principal accusing witness.
- Layered hearsay could be admitted as supporting evidence to suggest the existence of a covert plot, even absent a witness with direct knowledge of the charged agreement.
- The case later became a standard historical example cited for the dangers of convictions resting on “testimonial” accusations not tested by cross-examination, influencing later confrontation and hearsay doctrines.

## Conclusion

Raleigh was convicted of high treason after the court permitted the Crown to rely chiefly on a co-conspirator’s out-of-court written accusation, supplemented by other hearsay, while refusing to produce the accuser for cross-examination; the trial’s later significance lies in its role as a cautionary model for modern confrontation and hearsay limits.


Raleigh’s Case (The Trial of Sir Walter Raleigh), 2 Howell’s St. Tr. 1 (Oyer & Terminer 1603)