Samuel Chase, juez asociado de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos , fue sometido a juicio político por la Cámara de Representantes de los Estados Unidos el 12 de marzo de 1804, basándose en ocho artículos de acusación por mala conducta. Su juicio político ante el Senado de los Estados Unidos resultó en una sentencia absolutoria el 1 de marzo de 1805, sin que ninguno de los ocho artículos obtuviera la mayoría de dos tercios necesaria para una condena.
El proceso de destitución fue un asunto partidista. Fue un intento del Partido Demócrata-Republicano liderado por Thomas Jefferson de debilitar un poder judicial que había sido moldeado en gran medida por el Partido Federalista , que se oponía a él . Los resultados ayudaron a consolidar las normas de un poder judicial independiente y de que los procesos de destitución requieren algo más que un simple desacuerdo entre un funcionario y el Congreso.
Chase sigue siendo el único juez de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos que ha sido sometido a un juicio político.
El impeachment de Samuel Chase , juez asociado de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos , tuvo motivaciones políticas. [1] Un asunto de alto perfil en ese momento, [2] el impeachment enfrentó a los dos principales partidos políticos de los Estados Unidos de la época entre sí en medio de una batalla entre los partidos sobre, entre otras cosas, cómo debería ser el papel de los tribunales federales . [3] La era anterior al impeachment había visto una acalorada batalla política entre los federalistas , liderados por John Adams , y los demócratas-republicanos , liderados por Thomas Jefferson . La Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos era considerada en ese momento como fuertemente partidista del Partido Federalista. [4] El impeachment fue en gran parte una reacción a esta inclinación de la Corte Suprema. [2] El juez asociado Chase era visto como el juez más partidista de la Corte Suprema. [4] Era un federalista fuerte y dio a conocer públicamente su oposición al presidente Thomas Jefferson. [2] Había hecho campaña por el titular federalista John Adams durante la elección presidencial de 1800 . [5]
El impeachment fue también, en parte, una reacción al aumento del poder de la Corte Suprema en los años anteriores bajo el presidente John Marshall , incluida la histórica decisión Marbury v. Madison . Los demócratas-republicanos vieron al poder judicial, y especialmente a la Corte Suprema, como un obstáculo para su consolidación del poder en el gobierno. Cuando Jefferson asumió el cargo, los seis jueces de la Corte Suprema eran federalistas, y en 1804, Jefferson solo había tenido la oportunidad de hacer un solo nombramiento para cubrir una vacante en la Corte Suprema. [6] El presidente Jefferson, alarmado por la toma de poder por parte del poder judicial a través de su reclamo de revisión judicial exclusiva en Marbury v. Madison , lideró los esfuerzos de su partido para eliminar a los federalistas del tribunal. [7] Cuando Thomas Jefferson asumió el cargo de presidente en 1801, después de derrotar al presidente federalista en ejercicio John Adams en las elecciones presidenciales de 1800, se impacientó con la independencia del poder judicial. Él creía que el Congreso o el ejecutivo deberían tener más influencia sobre los jueces federales, y creía que su nombramiento y destitución debería ser más rutinario en línea con otros funcionarios públicos designados. [4] Las elecciones de los Estados Unidos de 1800 no sólo habían visto a Jefferson desbancar a Adams, sino que también habían visto a los demócratas-republicanos capturar el control de ambas cámaras del Congreso de los Estados Unidos en lo que Jefferson se refirió como la "Revolución de 1800". [8] El partido había ganado una cantidad lo suficientemente considerable de escaños en las cámaras de la legislatura como para hacer que el partido hipotéticamente fuera capaz de enjuiciar y destituir a un funcionario federal con sólo los votos de sus propios miembros. [2] [4] [9]
Los aliados de Jefferson en el Congreso habían, poco después de su toma de posesión, derogado la Ley Judicial de 1801 , aboliendo los tribunales inferiores creados por la legislación y despidiendo a sus jueces federalistas a pesar de los nombramientos vitalicios. En mayo de 1803, dos años después de esta derogación, Chase la denunció en su acusación ante un gran jurado de Baltimore , diciendo que "quitaría toda seguridad para la propiedad y la libertad personal, y nuestra constitución republicana se hundiría en una mafia ". [7] Esto jugaría un papel en los cargos de impeachment, junto con varios eventos de 1800. El primer evento de 1800 fue que Chase, en abril de 1800 mientras actuaba como juez de distrito, realizó fuertes ataques contra Thomas Cooper , quien había sido acusado bajo las Leyes de Extranjería y Sedición ; Chase había tomado el rumbo de un fiscal en lugar de un juez. [10] Esta conducta enfureció a los demócratas-republicanos. Su conducta poco después en el juicio de John Fries enfureció aún más a los demócratas y republicanos. Aún más enfureció su conducta en el juicio de mayo de 1800 a James T. Callender . [11] Más tarde en 1800, cuando un gran jurado en New Castle, Delaware, se negó a acusar a un impresor local, Chase se negó a absolverles, diciendo que sabía de un impresor específico al que quería que acusaran por comportamiento sedicioso. [12] [13] Jefferson vio el ataque como una mala conducta indudable y una oportunidad para reducir la influencia federalista en el poder judicial mediante el enjuiciamiento de Chase, lo que ayudó a impulsar la consideración de la Cámara de Representantes de enjuiciar a Chase dos semanas después, cuando escribió al congresista Joseph Hopper Nicholson de Maryland, preguntando: "¿Debe el ataque sedicioso y oficial [por Chase] a los principios de nuestra Constitución... quedar impune?" [14] [15]
En 1803, el juez federal de distrito John Pickering , cuyo estado mental había declinado, fue acusado y destituido por cargos de embriaguez habitual . Pickering fue solo el segundo funcionario en ser acusado por la Cámara de Representantes de los Estados Unidos , y fue el primer funcionario en ser destituido después de un juicio por el Senado de los Estados Unidos . Esta exitosa destitución de un juez de su cargo a través de un juicio político envalentonó a muchos en el Congreso a usar la herramienta del juicio político como un medio para empujar a la Corte Suprema hacia la sumisión. Igualmente alentadora fue la destitución del juez de Pensilvania Alexander Addison a través de un juicio político por parte de la legislatura de ese estado. [4] [16] La resolución que oficialmente impugnó a Chase fue adoptada por la Cámara de Representantes solo una hora después de que Pickering fuera condenado en su juicio político el 12 de marzo de 1804. [17] Los demócratas-republicanos adoptaron una visión amplia de para qué se podía utilizar el juicio político. Creían efectivamente que el Congreso podía utilizar el impeachment para remover a los jueces cuyas opiniones no eran apoyadas por más de un tercio de los senadores, viéndolo como un medio para mantener a los jueces en línea con los sentimientos del "pueblo". [18]
Se inició una investigación de juicio político contra Chase dirigida por el comité especial designado "para investigar la conducta oficial de Samuel Chase, uno de los jueces asociados de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos, y de Richard Peters , el juez de distrito del distrito de Pensilvania". La resolución para nombrar un comité especial para investigar a Chase fue presentada a la Cámara por John Randolph de Roanoke el 5 de enero de 1804. El 6 de enero de 1804, una investigación del juez Richard Peters del distrito de Pensilvania se agregó, mediante enmienda, a la resolución propuesta para el comité especial en una votación de 79 a 37 de la Cámara. La resolución enmendada fue adoptada por la Cámara el 7 de enero de 1804 en una votación de 81 a 40. [4] [19]
Los congresistas designados para el comité especial para dirigir la investigación fueron John Boyle , Joseph Clay , Peter Early , Roger Griswold , Benjamin Huger , Joseph Hopper Nicholson y John Randolph de Roanoke. [23]
El 10 de enero de 1804, la Cámara autorizó al comité especial a que enviara a buscar personas, papeles y registros. El 30 de enero de 1804, la Cámara autorizó a los miembros del comité a imprimir todos los documentos y papeles que consideraran necesarios. [23]
El comité especial que dirigía la investigación de juicio político presentó un informe a la Cámara el 6 de marzo de 1804 recomendando el juicio político de Chase junto con una resolución de juicio político. [17] [19] El 12 de marzo de 1804, el comité especial presentó formalmente su informe sobre sus investigaciones a la Cámara en pleno. [19] El informe decía:
Que, como consecuencia de la evidencia reunida por ellos, en virtud de los poderes con los que han sido investidos por la Cámara, y que se adjunta a la presente, opinan que:
1. Que Samuel Chase, Esq., uno de los jueces de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos, sea acusado de delitos y faltas graves .
2. Que Richard Peters, juez de distrito del distrito de Pensilvania, no ha actuado en su carácter judicial de manera que se requiera la interposición de los poderes constitucionales de esta Cámara. [19]
El comité también había creado una gran cantidad de documentos impresos que resumían una serie de testimonios y declaraciones tomadas tanto por el propio comité como por otros. [23]
El 12 de marzo de 1804, después de que el comité especial informara a la Cámara, la Cámara procedió sin debate a votar sobre la resolución de juicio político. La Cámara votó 73 a 32 para adoptar la resolución de juicio político a Chase. [17] [19] Esta fue la tercera vez que la Cámara de Representantes de los Estados Unidos votó para ejercer su poder de juicio político a un funcionario civil federal, siendo los dos incidentes anteriores el juicio político de 1797 a William Blount (en el que el Senado de los Estados Unidos votó para desestimar los cargos debido a dudas sobre si los miembros del Congreso de los Estados Unidos estaban en realidad sujetos constitucionalmente a sus propios poderes de juicio político [24] ) y el juicio político de 1803 al juez del tribunal federal de distrito de New Hampshire, John Pickering. La votación para adoptar la resolución de juicio político, por cierto, se produjo solo una hora después de que el Senado votara para condenar a Pickering en el juicio político de Pickering. [17]
La resolución de impeachment decía:
Se resuelve que Samuel Chase Esquire, uno de los jueces asociados de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos, sea acusado de delitos y faltas graves . [25]
Después de la adopción de la resolución, los congresistas John Randolph de Roanoke y Peter Early fueron designados para un comité para presentarse ante el Senado e informarles sobre la votación del impeachment. [26] El 14 de marzo de 1804, la Cámara recibió un mensaje del Senado de que el Senado tomaría la orden apropiada sobre el impeachment. [26]
En el período posterior a la aprobación de la resolución de juicio político se produjeron meses de investigación continua sobre las actividades de Chase, junto con un esfuerzo de meses de los demócratas y republicanos para moldear la opinión pública a favor de la destitución de Chase. Recién once meses después del inicio original de la investigación en enero se aprobaron los artículos de juicio político . [4]
En los primeros procesos de destitución federal en Estados Unidos, la práctica consistía en aprobar primero una resolución general de destitución y sólo después adoptar artículos de destitución que describían cargos específicos. Esto difiere de las prácticas de destitución federales modernas en Estados Unidos. [27]
El 13 de marzo de 1804, se nombró un comité especial para redactar un artículo de acusación contra Chase. [28] Los miembros del comité fueron los congresistas John Boyle , Joseph Clay, Peter Early, Joseph Hopper Nicholson y John Randolph de Roanoke. [26] Se informaron siete artículos de acusación a la Cámara el 26 de marzo de 1804, pero se ordenó que permanecieran sobre la mesa y no se tomó ninguna medida sobre ellos antes de que el congreso entrara en receso. [26] [29] El 6 de noviembre de 1804, los artículos fueron remitidos a un comité especial formado por los congresistas Joseph Clay, Peter Early y John Randolph de Roanoke, y John Rhea . [26]
El 30 de noviembre de 1804, al final de las actividades de investigación de juicio político, el congresista Randolph informó ocho artículos de juicio político a la Cámara. [4] El 4 de diciembre de 1804, la Cámara de Representantes realizó votaciones para adoptar los ocho artículos de juicio político. [30]
Todos los cargos involucraban el trabajo de Chase como juez de primera instancia en tribunales de circuito inferiores. [31] [32] En esa época, los jueces de la Corte Suprema tenían el deber adicional de servir individualmente en los tribunales de circuito. [31] Los jueces de la Corte Suprema solo pasaban una pequeña fracción de su tiempo reuniéndose como jueces de apelación en Washington, DC. La mayor parte de su tiempo lo pasaban actuando como jueces de circuito en áreas geográficas separadas de los Estados Unidos. En esta función, servirían en tándem con un juez de distrito federal asignado permanentemente al tribunal de esa área. [33] A los jueces de la Corte Suprema no les gustaba el acuerdo que los encomendaba con estas tareas de tribunal de circuito. [34] El núcleo de las acusaciones hechas contra Chase era que el sesgo político había llevado a Chase a tratar a los acusados y a sus abogados de una manera descaradamente injusta. [35]
A pesar de la teoría demócrata-republicana de que el impeachment no requería un acto criminal, muchos de los artículos se centraban en actos que se alegaba dudosamente que eran criminales. No está claro el motivo exacto por el que se incluyeron estos cargos entre los artículos del impeachment, pero una teoría es que John Randolph de Roanoke estaba interesado en demostrar la criminalidad de parte de Chase, independientemente de su propia teoría de que el impeachment no requería criminalidad. [36]
El orden de los artículos de acusación colocó los hechos infractores en orden cronológico. [37]
El primer artículo de acusación acusó a Chase de actuar de manera indebida durante el juicio por traición a John Fries en el circuito judicial en 1800, acusándolo de no haber actuado como juez imparcial y, en cambio, de haber actuado "de una manera sumamente arbitraria, opresiva e injusta". El artículo acusó a Chase de tener prejuicios contra la defensa de Fries. [30]
En el artículo se citaron tres ejemplos de la supuesta falta de imparcialidad de Chase. El primer ejemplo sostenía que Chase había emitido una opinión escrita sobre la cuestión de derecho en la que se basaba materialmente la defensa de Fries antes de que su abogado defensor hubiera podido hablar ante el jurado, perjudicando así al jurado en contra de la defensa de Fries. El segundo ejemplo sostenía que Chase había restringido al abogado defensor de Fries la posibilidad de citar una serie de autoridades jurídicas inglesas y una serie de estatutos de los Estados Unidos que, según ellos, serían ilustrativos de las posiciones que estaban esbozando en su defensa. El tercer ejemplo sostenía que había privado a Fries de "su privilegio constitucional de dirigirse al jurado (a través de su abogado) sobre la ley, así como sobre los hechos, que debían determinar su culpabilidad o inocencia, y al mismo tiempo tratar de arrebatarle al jurado su derecho indiscutible a escuchar los argumentos y determinar sobre la cuestión de derecho, así como sobre la cuestión de hecho, implicadas en el veredicto que estaban obligados a emitir". [30]
El artículo fue adoptado por una votación de 82 a 34. [30]
El segundo artículo acusó a Chase de actuar de manera indebida en el juicio de mayo de 1800 en el que James T. Callender fue acusado en virtud de la Ley de Extranjería y Sedición de difamación sediciosa contra el presidente John Adams al fallar en contra de la solicitud de un miembro del jurado, John Basset, de ser excusado de servir debido a que ya había llegado a un juicio personal sobre el caso antes del juicio. [30] [38] [36] El artículo fue adoptado por una votación de 83 a 35. [30]
El tercer artículo acusó a Chase de mala conducta en el juicio de James T. Callender al negarse a permitir que John Taylor testificara como testigo material en nombre de Callender. [30] [36] El artículo fue adoptado por una votación de 83 a 34. [30]
El cuarto artículo se refería a la conducta de Chase durante el juicio de Callender, acusándolo de una conducta que se caracterizaba por "manifiesta injusticia, parcialidad e intemperancia". El artículo citaba varios ejemplos. [30] [36] El artículo fue aprobado por una votación de 84 a 34. [30]
El quinto artículo alegó que la emisión de una orden judicial en lugar de una citación durante el juicio de Callender no se ajustaba al lenguaje estatutario de la "Ley para establecer los tribunales judiciales de los Estados Unidos". [30] [36] No se alegó ninguna intención maliciosa, y el artículo argumentó efectivamente que un error podría constituir un delito sujeto a juicio político. [39] El artículo fue adoptado por una votación de 70 a 45. [30]
El sexto artículo alegaba que su negativa a una prórroga durante el juicio de Callender no se ajustaba al lenguaje estatutario de la "Ley para establecer los tribunales judiciales de los Estados Unidos". [30] [36] El artículo fue adoptado por una votación de 73 a 42. [30]
El séptimo artículo trataba sobre la conducta de Chase ante el gran jurado de New Castle, Delaware. [30] [36] El artículo fue adoptado por una votación de 73 a 38. [30]
El octavo artículo trataba sobre la conducta de Chase ante el gran jurado de Baltimore. [30] Acusaba a Chase de ser "altamente indecente, extrajudicial", y también lo acusaba de "tender a prostituir el alto carácter judicial con el que estaba investido, en beneficio de los bajos fines de un partidario electoralista". El artículo, podría decirse, era el que más reflejaba la motivación principal del impeachment: la opinión de que Chase era un federalista partidario. [40] La primera sección del artículo, que esbozaba los cargos, fue aprobada por una votación de 74 a 39. Un segundo segmento del artículo, que esbozaba algunos aspectos generales del proceso de impeachment y la preparación para el juicio, fue aprobado por una votación separada de 78 a 32. [30]
.png/1280px-Resolution_of_the_House_that_the_Managers_of_the_Impeachment_of_Samuel_Chase_Carry_the_Articles_to_the_Senate,_December_5,_1804_(side_1).png)
After adopting the eight articles of impeachment, the House considered a motion to appoint by ballot the House managers that would act as the prosecution in the impeachment trial before the Senate. However, a vote on this motion was postponed until the following day. On December 5, 1804, the House approved the motion and voted by ballot to appoint seven house managers. On the first ballot, six individuals met the required majority of votes to be selected as managers (John Boyle, Peter Early, Roger Nelson, Joseph Hopper Nicholson, John Randolph of Roanoke, and Caesar Augustus Rodney). Thereafter, a second ballot was held to fill the final slot. Nobody received the needed majority in this round. Speaker Nathaniel Macon opined that, per a House standing rule related to such a situation on a second ballot that he believed was applicable, the individual with the greatest plurality should be considered duly elected. As George W. Campbell had the greatest plurality on the second ballot, it was Speaker Macon's opinion that Campbell was therefore duly elected the seventh impeachment manager. However, two congressmen appealed the speaker's decision, and the House voted that the Speaker Macon's decision not to be "in order". Therefore, a third ballot was held. On with ballot, Campbell received the required majority of the vote, and was therefore elected as the seventh manager.[30][41] All seven members individuals were members of the Democratic–Republican party.[21] After the election of the impeachment managers, the House approved a motion ordering for the managers to bring the articles before the Senate.[30] After this, a motion was approved ordering for a message to be sent by the clerk of the United States House of Representatives to the Senate to notify them that the House had appointed the impeachment managers and had directed them to carry the articles to the Senate.[30] On December 6, 1804, Roger Nelson declined his appointment to be an impeachment manager, as he would have to absent from Washington, D.C. during the trial.[41] Nelson was replaced with Christopher H. Clark.[42]
John Randolph of Roanoke served as the chairman and main spokesman of the impeachment managers.[4]
The Senate was controlled by Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans at the time of the trial. With a 25–9 majority, they had a two-thirds supermajority hypothetically capable of securing Chase's conviction in even a party-line vote.[2][4][9]
Vice President Aaron Burr served as the presiding officer of the trial. At the time he had outstanding murder charges against him in two states resulting from his fatal shooting of Alexander Hamilton during the Burr–Hamilton duel.[4][31][43] Presiding over the impeachment trial was among the last official duties Burr undertook as vice president, along with presiding over the certification of the Electoral College vote for the 1804 presidential election on February 13, 1805, in the middle of the impeachment trial. He would give his vice-presidential farewell speech to the Senate the day after the trial ended.[31]
As the trial approached, perhaps to influence how Burr would conduct the trial, Jefferson began to give Burr increased attention. Burr received several invitations to dine at the President's House (the White House). Appointed to important offices in the newly-established government of the Louisiana Territory were Burr's stepson, Burr's brother-in-law, and Burr's close friend James Wilkinson. On a similar note, Senator William Branch Giles, a chief proponent of impeaching and removing Chase, distributed a petition urging Governor George Clinton of New York to see that the murder indictment against Burr be withdrawn. Many Democratic–Republican senators obliged to sign this petition. In his book Grand Inquests, William Rehnquist opined that he saw no historical evidence that Burr was persuaded by these overtures.[44] Burr was highly praised for his performance as the presiding officer of the trial.[31] However, some senators were discontent with how he had acted as presiding officer, with William Plumer writing in his daily diary, "Mr. Burr is remarkably testy—he acts more of the tyrant—is impatient, passionate—scolds—he is in a rage because we do not sit longer."[44]
The impeachment managers served as the prosecutors.
Chase was defended by his counsel: Robert Goodloe Harper, Joseph Hopkinson, Charles Lee Philip Barton Key, and Luther Martin.[4][2] Martin ultimately took a leading role in the defense.[4]
On November 30, 1804, in preparation for the trial, the Senate appointed Senators Abraham Baldwin, John Breckenridge, William Branch Giles, Israel Smith, and David Stone to serve on a special committee tasked with creating rules of proceedings for the Senate to use in the trial. On December 7, 1804, the rules created by this committee were reported back to the full Senate.[45]
Nineteen rules were adopted for the trial.[46] The rules were formally adopted by the Senate on December 24 and 31, 1804.[41] These rules appear to have also been used for the later impeachment trials of James H. Peck and West Hughes Humphreys. After this, new rules were created ahead of the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson.[46] Johnson's impeachment trial could not use the rules created for Chase's impeachment, as those rules used wording specific to a trial being presided over by an officer of the Senate, while the Constitution stipulates that impeachments trials for incumbent presidents are presided over by the chief justice of the United States.[47] However, the rules adopted for Johnson's impeachment trial were in part adapted from the rules of Chase's and earlier impeachment trials.[46]
The Senate first began impeachment trial proceedings on December 7, 1804. The articles of impeachment were carried the Senate Chamber where they were read. A summons was then issued for Justice Chase, to be returned on January 2, 1805, at which point the Justice was to answer the charges.[4][41][42] At approximately 2pm on January 3, 1805, the court was opened by proclamation. An oath was administered to Vice President Burr. Burr then administered an oath to the senators. This was with the exception of Senators George Logan, Samuel Maclay, and William Plumer who were instead administered an affirmation. This was also with the exception of Senators James A. Bayard, William Cocke, John Gaillard, and David Stone, who were not present. No members of the House of Representatives were present on this day, including the absence of the House impeachment managers. Vice President Burr, as presiding officer, declared that he had received a letter from the defended which contained an affidavit attesting that he needed further time to prepare for the trial. The affidavit was then read. The Senate then voted to extend the date by which they were to receive an answer and proceed with the trial to February 4, 1805 and to notify the House of Representatives and Samuel Chase of this extension.[48]
Before the start of the pleading phase, Vice President Burr had had the Senate chamber decorated for the trial in what was described by reporters Thomas Lloyd and Samuel Harrison Smith as "a style of appropriate elegance".[4][49] A semi-circular gallery was constructed in the chamber for the trial, which one Federalist senator likened to a "Roman amphitheater."[31] Lloyd and Harrison described the arrangement of the Senate Chamber for the trial as follows,
Benches covered with crimson, on each side, and in a line with the chair of the [Vice] President, were assigned to the members of the Senate. On the right and front of the chair, a box was assigned to the [impeachment] Managers, and on the left a similar box to Mr. Chase and his counsel and chairs allotted to such friends as he might introduce. The residue of the floor was occupied with chairs for the accommodation of the members of the House of Representatives; and with boxes for representation of foreign ministers, and civil and military officers of the United States. On the right and left of the chair, at the termination of the benches of the members of the court, boxes were assigned to stenographers. The permanent gallery was allotted to the indiscriminate admission of spectators. Below this gallery, and above the floor of the House, a new gallery was raised, and fitted up with peculiar elegance, intended primarily for the exclusive accommodation of ladies. But this feature of the arrange meant made by the Vice-President, was at an early period in the trial abandoned, it having been found impractical to separate the sexes! At the termination of this gallery, on each side, boxes were specially assigned to ladies attached to the families of public characters. The preservation of order was devolved on Marshal of district of Columbia, who was assisted by a number of deputies.[50]
The thirty-four senators sat in two rows of crimson-cloth covered benches, oriented to look towards the galleries and the area set aside for the defense and prosecution. The temporary gallery that had been erected for use by female spectators contained three rows of green cloth-covered seats. The defense and prosecution were seated in separate boxes facing the bar of the Senate containing blue cloth-covered seats.[51]
On February 4, 1805, at approximately 9:45am, the court was opened by proclamation with all members of the Senate in attendance and with Vice President Burr presiding.[4][52] The Senate Chamber was filled with spectators. Oaths were administered to Senators Bayard, Cocke, Gaillard, and Stone, all who had not been present when oaths were previously administered to senators. It was then ordered that the secretary of the United States Senate give notice to the House that the Senate was convened in their public chamber, prepared to proceed with the trial, and that seats were provided in the chamber for the accommodation of the House's members. The House impeachment managers, several minutes later, accompanied by other members of the House entered the chamber to take their seats. Chase and his legal counsel then appeared. Chase moved for permission to read his answer to the impeachment court, and the Senate agreed by a vote to allow him to. Chase then proceeded to read his answer.[53] Chase's response was more than 100 pages.[31] He read it for a length reported to be either two and one-half hours or three and a half hours.[4][31]
Originally, when Chase had entered the chamber's box, the sergeant at arms of the United States Senate brought a chair to Chase. However, Burr ordered that this chair be removed, believing that the chamber should mimic the English criminal trial practice in which prisoners were made to stand "in the dock".[44] Chase, however, asked to be allowed to use a chair due to his ill health. Chase was sixty-four years old and suffered from gout. After this request was made, Burr allowed for a chair to be provided for Chase to use.[31][44]
In his answer, Chase denied having committed any crime or misdemeanor.[39] Chase addressed the charges, explaining his conduct in the Fries and Callender trials and the New Castle grand jury.[51] For example, in response to the third article, he argued that John Taylor's testimony, "was inconclusive, immaterial, and inadmissible."[31] He also argued that errors in rulings were not a grounds for removal from office.[39] He outright refuted the eighth charge.[51] In response to the Baltimore grand jury-related allegations, he argued that making a mistake in political expression should not be criminalized, remarking that otherwise, "a party in power, under this pretext, [might] destroy any judge who might happen...to say something capable of being construed by them into a political opinion adverse to their own system."[31]
After Chase's answer was read, Randolph requested for the House managers be given time to prepare a response, which was delivered days later[4] on February 9, 1805.[51]
In the argument phase, the two sides called many witnesses,[31] with 52 in total providing testimony.[4] The trial was suspended on February 13 so that the certification of the Electoral College vote of the 1804 presidential election, in which Jefferson was reelected, could be held.[31] Chase was not subject to any direct questioning during the argument phase.[54]
The argument phase of the trial began on February 9, 1805. The prosecution went first, giving their presentation over five days.[4] 18 witnesses were brought to the stand to provide sworn testimony about Chase's conduct related to the articles of impeachment.[4][55] The case presented by the prosecution was twofold. They argued that impeachment was a process through which the Senate was allowed to remove officers such as Chase at their own prerogative, and no grounds were therefore required to be proven in the impeachment trial. They alternatively, for those unconvinced by this, presented other argument aimed at proving that Chase had committed content that constituted a high crime or misdemeanor worthy of removal from office.[56]
Peter Early provided the opening remarks of the prosecution's presentation. This was followed by a lengthy and detailed presentation by George W. Campbell espousing a Jeffersonian perspective on federal impeachment.[4] Campbell argued,
Impeachment, according to the meaning of the constitution, may fairly be considered a kind of inquest into the conduct of an officer, merely as it regards his office; the manner in which he performs the duties thereof; and the affects [sic] that his conduct therein may have on society...more in the nature of a civil investigation than of a criminal prosecution.[4]
Campbell then outlined the actions of Chase in question in the trial, giving particularly focus on his conduct during the Callander trial. Campbell's remarks stretched over two days. His speech has been described as "dull and confused", and the Senate Chamber was sparsely attended by spectators during his remarks.[4] In the early part of the prosecution's presentation, both Early and Campbell each gave remarks that addressed several of the articles of impeachment. Early's remarks, however, largely summarized the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses. Early alleged that the only conclusion one could reasonably draw from Chase's judicial errors, given Chase's high education, was that he had permitted a personal "thirst for punishment" to get in the way of impartial justice. Early also declared, "[S]urely we shall not be asked for proofs of corrupt intent...in such a case as the one now under consideration, the answer is that the criminal intent is apparent upon the face of the act." Campbell discussed the legal theories championed by the prosecution and also argued that it was important there be an apolitical judiciary, charging Chase with misusing his judicial position to advance his own political beliefs. Campbell argued that Chase's, "justiciar authority was prostituted to party purposes." Campbell also argued that political grand jury charges were unreconcilable with the ideal of judicial independent as they tarnished the impartiality of judges.[57]
After Early and Campbell, Christopher H. Clark spoke briefly. His remarks were focused on the fifth and sixth articles, which pertained to the Callender trial.[58]
In the defense's presentation, which took four days,[4] it was argued that the constitution only intended impeachment to be for charges related to accusations of a civil officer having committed an indictable crime.[2] It began with remarks by Robert Goodloe Harper on February 15, 1805. The defense called 32 witnesses in their presentation.[55]
John Hopkinson argued an interpretation of the Constitutional prescription for impeachment being allowed for 'treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors' that, under the constitution, "No judge can be impeached and removed from office for any act or offense for which he could not be indicted." He argued that Congress could not, on their own accord, decide what constituted impeachable conduct, but rather, had to heed this interpretation of the Constitution. He declared that while the House of impeachment, "had the power of impeachment", that, "what they are to impeach in what cases they may exercise this delegated power depends on...the Constitution, and not on their opinion, whim, or caprice." He outlined an argument for the value of an independent judiciary, and further argued that removal for the circumstances that Chase was being impeached for would undermine judicial independence,[4] asking,
[I]f a judge is forever to be exposed to prosecutions and impeachment for his official conduct, on mere suggestions of caprice, and to be condemned by the mere voice of prejudice...can he hold that firm and steady hand his high functions required?[4]
Historian Adam A. Perlin accused the House-appointed impeachment managers of seeking to expand the ability of Congress to, "create offenses at their will and pleasure," and argued that a conviction of Chase would lead to Congress being able to remove judges for purely political purposes.[59]
On February 19, 1805, during the defense's presentation, Burr granted Chase permission to cease personal attendance at the trial as Chase began to suffer a painful case of gout.[4][31]
After John Hopkinson's presentation, Philip Barton Key and Charles Lee next spoke on February 22, 1805.[4] On February 23, 1805, Luther Martin spoke. In his remarks, Luther Martin, who had been a delegate to United States Constitutional Convention himself, declared,
The principle I have endeavored to establish is that no judge or other officer can, under the Constitution of the United States, be removed from office but by impeachment, and for the violation of some law, which the violation must not simply be a crime or misdemeanor, but a high crime or misdemeanor.[2]
Martin defended Chase's conduct in the Fries trial and the Callender trial. Martin defended some of the specific behavior of Chase's that had been under attack by the prosecution. He justified Chase's judicial conduct in the Callender trial, including examining the Sedition law that was in question itself. Martin conceded that Chase had, occasionally, been overly influenced by his personal emotions, but argued that this behavior was,
Rather a violation of the principles of politeness, than of the principles of law; rather the want of decorum than the commission of a high crime and misdemeanor.[4]
Martin argued that impeachment was being used in a partisan manner, which threatened the integrity of the judiciary by placing it under discipline by a political party.[4]
The closing remarks began on February 20, 1805, and lasted for eight days.[51] During the closing remarks, the House impeachment managers spoke both first and last, with the defense giving remarks in between.[60]
Robert Goodloe Harper gave the closing remarks of the defense's presentation.[4] In his remarks, he argued,
An impeachment is not a mere inquiry, in the nature of an inquest of office, whether an officer be qualified for his place, or whether some reason of policy or expediency may not demand his removal, but a criminal prosecution, for the support of which the proof of some willful violation of a known law of the land is known to be indispensably required.[2]
Harper also brought attention to the impeachment managers' approach of presenting contradictory arguments: first arguing that they needed to prove nothing, then proceeding to try to present proof of an impeachable crime. He argued that, on one hand the managers at once, argued, "that this is a merely a question of policy and expedience," and also cited, "legal authorities, both English and American, for the purpose of explaining the doctrine of impeachment, and of proving that the acts alleged against the respondent amount to impeachable offenses". This is a criticism that was never directly responded to by the impeachment managers.[61]
Nicholson, Randolph, and Rodney gave the closing remarks for the prosecution. Despite being sick the day before and having lost his prepared notes, Randolph personally spoke for two and one-half hours in the closing remarks.[4]
Randolph argued, "[Chase] stands charged with having sinned against his law and against his sacred oath, by acting in his judicial capacity unfaithfully, partially, and with respect to persons."[2]
The Senate thereafter resolved to reconvene on March 1, 1805 as a court of impeachment to give their judgement.[4]
The Senate convened on March 1, 1805 to vote on verdicts for each of the articles.[62] The galleries of the Senate were filled with many spectators who witnessed the Senate's deliberations.[31]
With 25 members, the Democratic–Republicans had enough votes on their own to hypothetically convict Chase.[2][4][9] However, the Senate voted to acquit Chase of all charges, with each articles seeing at least six Democratic–Republican senators joining all Federalist senators in voting to acquit.[2]
There were 34 senators (25 Democratic-Republicans and 9 Federalists). Therefore, with all senators voting, 23 "guilty" votes were needed to reach the required two-thirds majority for conviction/removal from office.[4] Ultimately, the article that received the most guilty votes (Article VIII) still fell four votes short of a two-thirds majority for conviction.[63]
The vote on a verdict began at 12:30pm.[64] For each vote, Vice President Burr individually asked each senator in a roll call vote, "Mr. _____, how say you; is the respondent, Samuel Chase, guilty or not guilty of a high crime or misdemeanor as charged in the _____ article of impeachment?"[4] The Senators each responded by casting a vote of either "guilty" or "not guilty".[62]
After the voting concluded, Burr recited each count before declaring,
Hence it appears that there is not a constitutional majority of votes binding Samuel Chase, Esquire, guilty on any one article. It therefore, becomes my duty to declare that Samuel Chase, Esquire, stands acquitted of all the articles exhibited by the House of Representatives against him.[65]
No senator made any floor remarks to the Senate explaining the reasons for their vote.[66] This differs from more modern U.S. federal impeachment trials, in which senators often deliver speeches after the close of the trial.[67]
Chase remained on the court until his June 1811 death. The acquittal of Chase handed a political defeat to Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson would have possibly moved next to impeach Chief Justice John Marshall had the Senate convicted Chase.[69]
The failure of the Democratic–Republicans in the United States Congress to remove Chase followed the failure of the Democratic–Republicans to remove all three Federalist justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (Edward Shippen IV and Thomas Smith, Jasper Yeates) that had been similarly impeached on political grounds on March 23, 1804 Democratic–Republican-led Pennsylvania House of Representatives but acquitted in their impeachment trial before the Pennsylvania Senate in the vote held on January 28, 1805.[70][71] Not willing to surrender defeat, some Democratic–Republicans in both the federal government and state judiciaries turned their attention to amending their constitutions. John Randolph of Roanoke appeared on the House floor the very afternoon to propose and amendment to the United States Constitution that would allow the president, upon the request of both Houses of congress, to remove any federal judge. Joseph Hopper Nicholson proposed a Constitutional amendment that would allow for state legislatures to recall (remove) senators for any reason.[4][70] In the Pennsylvania state legislature, amendments to the state constitution were proposed that would allow judges to be removed by a simple majority vote, make the threshold for an impeachment conviction a simple majority, and have judges hold terms of years rather than lifetime appointments. A major issue of the 1805 Pennsylvania gubernatorial election would be the prospect of a holding a state constitutional convention.[70]
Chase is the only U.S. Supreme Court justice that has ever been impeached.[2][72]
The acquittal of Chase—by lopsided margins on several counts—set an unofficial precedent that many historians say helped ensure the independence of the judiciary. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted in his book Grand Inquests, some senators declined to convict Chase despite their partisan hostility to him, apparently because they doubted that the mere quality of his judging was grounds for removal.[7] All impeachments of federal judges since Chase have been based on allegations of legal or ethical misconduct, not on judicial performance. For their part, federal judges since that time have generally been much more cautious than Chase in trying to avoid the appearance of political partisanship.[73]
The impeachment raised constitutional questions over the nature of the judiciary and was the end of a series of efforts to define the appropriate extent of judicial independence under the Constitution. It set the unofficial limits of the impeachment power, fixed the concept that the judiciary was prohibited from engaging in partisan politics, defined the role of the judge in a criminal jury trial, and clarified judicial independence. The construction was largely attitudinal, as it modified political norms without codifying new legal doctrines.[74][75]
Viewing the trial's outcome protected the independence of the judiciary.[76]
While the impeachment was a major event at the time it took place,[2] it has since been relegated to relative historical obscurity in both the general public consciousness and even in terms of scholarly coverage.[77]