united-states criminal-law constitutional-law definition
US Treason Definition vs Technology
<p>I know treason charges, in and of themselves, seems rarely pursued, in part because of its strict definition. However, I was interested in this restriction:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>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.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Obviously, this was written in the late 1700s, with concerns of something like a "Star Chamber" being formed. However, we now have cameras and electronic records; non-witness means of verifying behavior. I was wondering if treason charges would be able to be brought in the following scenarios:</p>

<ol>
<li>A physical act of treason, captured on video recording</li>
<li>An electronic act of treason, captured in an electronic record</li>
</ol>

<p>Thus being a fundamental question of constitutional law, this translates into asking how SCOTUS would likely rule given a certain situation where e.g. there was no confession and the two-witness requirement is not satisfied. In the case of <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/325/1/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Cramer v. US</a>, 325 U.S. 1, the direct testimony of two or more witnesses established that "Cramer met Thiel and Kerling on the occasions and at the places charged; that they drank together, and that they engaged long and earnestly in conversation", but "There was no proof by two witnesses of what they said, or in what language they conversed; no showing that Cramer gave them any information whatever of value to their mission, or that he had any to give; no showing of any effort at secrecy, they having met in public places, and no evidence that Cramer furnished them shelter, sustenance, or supplies, or that he gave them encouragement or counsel, or even paid for their drinks". The ruling (in favor of the defendant) focused on the fact that what was suffiently witnessed was not treasonous (drinks and conversation are not overt acts of treason). The court assigns some significance to the testimony of a single witness Kopp, stating that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>To the extent that his conviction rests upon such evidence, and it
  does to an unknown but considerable extent, it rests upon the
  uncorroborated testimony of one witness not without strong emotional
  interest in the drama of which Cramer's trial was a part.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The fact that the evidence was uncorroborated is dispositive in this case.</p>

<p>There has not been a case where a conviction was supported only by circumstantial evidence, and the language of the Constitution plus the meaning of "testimony of a witness" is clear enough that it would be a major break with legal tradition to say that circumstantial evidence can substitute for direct evidence (testimony). </p>

<p>A video recording cannot testify, only a person can testify. A person can testify that they watched a video, but they cannot testify that they directly witnessed defendant making a certain statement. Rather they can testify that they inferred from watching the video that defendant made a statement. This is not to say that some SCOTUS could not find a path for conviction based on circumstantial evidence, but that would be a significant break from existing tradition.</p>
