## Facts

- John Mitchell was prosecuted in federal circuit court for high treason arising from the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania.
- The indictment alleged Mitchell joined an armed group that assembled at Couche’s Fort and proceeded in force toward the home of General John Neville, a federal revenue inspector.
- The government alleged Mitchell participated in the expedition intended to prevent enforcement of the federal excise law, including coercion of a federal officer and violence at Neville’s property.
- Trial evidence included multiple witnesses placing Mitchell at the armed assembly and on the march; only one witness directly placed him at the burning of Neville’s house.
- The case was tried to a jury, and the court’s principal reported analysis was the judge’s charge on the constitutional definition of treason and the evidentiary standard.

## Issues

1. Whether an organized, armed combination acting in military array to prevent execution of a federal statute and coerce a federal excise officer constitutes “levying war” against the United States under Article III’s Treason Clause.
2. Whether Article III’s requirement of “two witnesses to the same overt act” is satisfied by two-witness proof of the armed assembly and march with the treasonable party, even if only one witness proves the defendant’s presence at the ultimate violent act (the burning).

## Decision

- The court instructed that an armed, organized effort to suppress federal excise officers and prevent execution of an Act of Congress, accompanied by force and violence to compel an officer to resign, constitutes levying war and therefore treason.
- The court treated the armed assembly, march, and attack as one continuous treasonable enterprise for purposes of identifying an “overt act.”
- The court instructed that two-witness proof of the defendant’s armed participation in the expedition (assembly and march in military order with the party that used force to obstruct the law) could satisfy the constitutional two-witness requirement without two witnesses to the moment of violence.
- The jury found Mitchell guilty of treason; he was sentenced to death and later pardoned by the President.

## Legal Principles

- “Levying war” includes a combination to prevent execution of federal law by organized force: assembling and proceeding in military array with arms, and using violence or intimidation to suppress federal officers or compel resignation.
- In treason prosecutions, the “overt act” may be the armed expedition or enterprise itself, not solely the final violent incident within it.
- The Article III two-witness requirement may be satisfied by testimony of two witnesses to the defendant’s armed participation in the expedition that executed the treasonable design, even if two witnesses do not attest to the culminating violent act.

## Conclusion

The court treated organized, armed resistance aimed at obstructing enforcement of a federal statute and coercing federal officers as treason by levying war, and it allowed the two-witness requirement to be met through two-witness proof of the defendant’s armed participation in the expedition constituting the overt act.


United States v. Mitchell, 26 F. Cas. 1277 (C.C.D. Pa. 1795)