  It also focused on the fact that the indictment concerned an assembly of men on Blannerhassett’s Island as the overt act, and the testimony provided by the prosecution did not clearly demonstrate that it was a military force, or coherently show that it was organized, let alone by Burr who was in Kentucky at the time.  
	On August 31, Marshall issued his decision, what came to be a landmark in constitutional law and in defining treason for the United States. With little precedent other than a related case that Marshall ruled on shortly before the trial of Burr, he relied upon historical interpretations of treason, the principals of increased protection against state persecution, and the Constitution, which he held as the supreme doctrine in answering these issues. With respect to his previous decision on treason, US v. Bollman and Swartwout, Marshall had to justify the logic that led to the conclusion that “those who do not bear arms may yet be guilty of treason,” through a slight departure from that stance as well as differentiating between the specifics of the cases.  Marshall then struck a direct blow to the prosecution, ruling that the indictment “can be supported only by testimony which proves the accused to have been actually or constructively present when the assemblage took place on Blannerhassett’s Island,” before continuing “it is further the opinion of the court that there is no testimony whatever which tends to prove that the accused was actually or constructively present when that assemblage did take place. Indeed the contrary is most apparent.”  The exact definition of an overt act, to Marshall, had to be a display of force for which Burr was responsible, in addition to evidence to this fact by two witnesses as stated in the Constitution.  In this light, the prosecution had nothing further to offer due to their case being contingent on the idea of conspiracy and Burr’s intent to cause an uprising, instead of his actively taking part in the supposed overt act of levying war.
	September 1st, then, the jury convened and issued their verdict, specifically referring to the course of the trial, stating “We of the jury say that Aaron Burr is not proved to be guilty under this indictment by any evidence submitted to us. We therefore find him not guilty.”  This result meant defeat for Jefferson in what he desired most, though the trial dragged on for weeks afterwards on lesser charges. Burr, however, had beaten the most serious charges, and would eventually be committed for violating the Neutrality Act but allowed to post bail to face charges in Ohio. Burr instead went north, later heading to Europe to escape his notoriety. 	 Jefferson’s response to the outcome of the trial was predictable: outrage and anger, mostly at Marshall. In a letter to Wilkinson, he called the events “equivalent to a proclamation of impunity to every traitorous combination which may be formed to destroy the Union; and they preserve a head for all such combinations as may be formed within, and a centre for all the intrigues & machinations which foreign governments may nourish to disturb us. 