No Person shall be convicted Of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same Overt Act, or on Confession in open Court

Introduction:-The present case is of Cramer v. United States popularly known as the ‘Treason case’ in which the Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the conviction of the Petitioner, Anthony Cramer, a German-born naturalized citizen, for treason. The case marked the first time that the U.S Supreme Court passed on the meaning of the treason clause of Article III, section 2, of the Constitution.

Facts of the case:- Anthony Cramer (defendant) was a German-born, naturalized citizen and resident of the United States. Cramer had been living in New York in 1942 when the United States (plaintiff) charged Cramer with treason for adhering to enemies of the United States and giving them care and comfort under convicted of violating Section 1 of the Criminal Code. The United States alleged that Cramer was providing support to German saboteurs Werner Thiel and Edward Kerling. In June of 1942, Thiel and Kerling landed on United States shores in enemy submarines intending to disrupt industry in the United States. Cramer claimed to have had no knowledge of the plot and claimed that he had only met with Thiel because they were close friends who had previously lived and worked together. The United States alleged that Cramer had committed overt acts when he met with Thiel and Kerling at the Twin Oaks Inn and Thompson’s Cafeteria, where they drank and engaged in conversation. This was observed by two or more agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Cramer was convicted of treason. Cramer appealed and argued that the alleged overt acts were insufficient to support a finding that he had given care and comfort to the enemy. The court of appeals upheld Cramer’s conviction. The Supreme Court granted certificate.

Judgement given by trial court:- In that case Cramer council argued on the constitution ‘s treason clause which provides as follows :-Treason against the United State shall consist only in living war against them or in a adhering to their enemies giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted Of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same Overt Act, or on Confession in open Court .Cramer argued that the Constitution required that the overt acts testified to by two witnesses Must openly manifest treason on their face and that the acts submitted to the jury were not of that sort. The government countered by Contending that the overt act requirement for treason was akin to the Overt act requirement for conspiracy—the act need only be proof of a Step toward the conspiratorial aim, even if the act itself is innocuous On its face.

The trial judge, Judge Henry Goddard, agreed with the government and found the overt acts to be constitutionally sufficient and Submitted the case to the jury. After deliberating, the jury returned guilty verdict, and Judge Goddard sentenced Cramer to forty-five Years imprisonment and fined him $10,000.

Issues:-The Issue is whether Cramer’s conviction for treason was proper given the evidence presented at trial and the constitutional provision for treason.

Judgement by honorable supreme court :-The case was originally argued on March 9, 1944 reargued on November 6, 1944 and finally decided on April 23, 1945. The Court decided 5:4 to overturn the jury verdict. Writing for the majority, Justice Robert H. Jackson said that the Constitution is clear in its definition of treason, limited to the waging of war, or giving material assistance to an enemy. The prosecution and its witnesses could demonstrate only an association and not that Cramer had given “Aid and Comfort,” as defined in Article 3. Jackson wrote that the jury had been given no evidence that Cramer had “even paid for their drinks.” As such, the majority opinion held, the associations were insufficient to convict Cramer for treason, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed. The court held that the testimonial were not sufficient that Cramer should be convicted. And after that court reversed the verdict In favor of defendant ‘s claims.

Writing in dissent, Justice William O. Douglas claimed that acts, though innocent by nature, may serve a treasonous plan. Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone concurred with the dissent.

Cramer later pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of trading with the enemy and was sentenced to six years in prison.

Conclusion: The legal conclusion of the court is that the conviction for treason against Cramer is reversed due to insufficient evidence for overt acts 1 and 2, but he can still be guilty of treason if he knew or believed that the saboteurs were enemies working for the German Reich. The two-witness rule applies to all acts charged as treason, and the prosecution cannot rely on evidence that does not meet the constitutional test for overt acts to create an inference of additional incriminating acts.

In Cramer, the Supreme Court stated that very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses. The Court In Cramer explained that once the two-witness requirement is met, the prosecution can present “corroborative or cumulative evidences of any admissible character either to strengthen a direct case or to rebut the testimony or inferences on behalf of defendant ”.

Written by:- Name- Aditya Kumar BALLB( 2nd semester), College    –    ICFAI    law    School, ICFAI University Dehradun. intern under legal vidhiya