## Facts

- Vigol participated in an armed uprising in western Pennsylvania opposing enforcement of a federal excise tax on distilled spirits.
- An armed group, including Vigol, went to excise officer Reigan’s home, demanded official papers, and compelled Reigan to swear he would not enforce the excise law again.
- The group then went to excise officer Wells’s home, threatened to destroy Wells and his house, ransacked and burned the house, and destroyed public books and papers connected to the excise office.
- After locating Wells, the group seized and imprisoned him and compelled him to swear he would no longer act as an excise officer.
- The prosecution presented testimony to prove overt acts showing both Vigol’s participation and the collective purpose to stop enforcement of the excise law by force.
- Vigol suggested he acted under coercion, asserting a form of duress.

## Issues

1. Whether participation in an organized, armed effort to prevent execution of a federal statute constitutes treason by “levying war” against the United States.
2. Whether claimed coercion excused participation where there was no immediate threat to the defendant’s life or person.
3. Whether differences between the indictment and proof regarding the date of the offense or the size of the insurgent party were material.

## Decision

- The circuit court submitted the case to the jury under the court’s charge, with the trial turning on proof of overt acts.
- The jury found Vigol guilty of high treason based on levying war against the United States.
- The court rejected the asserted duress theory as legally insufficient on the record presented.
- The court treated objections about the exact day alleged and the exact number of insurgents as immaterial in law.

## Legal Principles

- Treason by levying war includes organized, armed action aimed at preventing execution of a federal law by force, when supported by proven overt acts and a common unlawful purpose.
- Proof of a defendant’s membership in an armed party committing violent acts to coerce federal officers and disable federal administration can satisfy the overt-act requirement for treason.
- Duress does not excuse participation in such conduct absent an immediate threat to life or personal safety; fear of property loss or non-imminent harm is insufficient.
- Minor variances between indictment allegations and proof as to date or the number of participants do not defeat liability when the material elements of the offense are established.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a treason conviction where the defendant joined armed groups that used violence and coercion to disable federal excise enforcement, holding that such conduct amounted to levying war against the United States, that non-imminent coercion did not excuse it, and that technical variances in proof were not legally material.


United States v. Vigol, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 346 (C.C.D. Pa. 1795)