Great trials of state like the one in Richmond are the stuff of history, but they cannot be expected to settle the historical narrative. Still, such trials are expected to settle certain things: the yes-or-no guilt of the accused; the facts on the ground that called forth the law that brought the accused to court in the first place; and finally the law itself. Ideally, the law should be stated with enough clarity and authority to be accepted by the public as fair and binding.

After months of learned discourse by some of the best lawyers in America arguing before one of its greatest judges, the Burr trial settled none of these – at least none fully and convincingly. Instead of bringing closure and catharsis, the trial as concluded by the enigmatic verdict of the jury perpetuated the debate – about Burr’s innocence or guilt; about Jefferson’s role; about Marshall’s fairness; and indeed about the reliability of the legal process itself. Instead of generating one convincing narrative, the trial generated several – which is why it affords such an intriguing glimpse of early national history. The miracle is that out of the partisan moralizing and character bashing came some legal principles consonant with the fundamental character of the young republic.