In the United States v. Burr case of 1894, Aaron Burr was indicted for treason against the U.S. government due to his alleged plan to separate territories from the U.S and establish an independent nation under his control. The Supreme Court ruled that in order for a citizen to be convicted of treason, there must be an overt act witnessed by two people or confession in open court; mere intention is not enough. In this case, no such evidence existed against Burr as all accusations were based on intentions and plans rather than actions taken towards their execution. Therefore, despite being charged with high misdemeanor offenses including setting up military expeditions against Spanish America without government approval, he was acquitted of treason charges.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Burr, it was argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of what constituted an "official act" under federal bribery law. The dissent contended that a broader definition should be applied, one which would encompass any action taken by a public official within their capacity and authority, even if not directly related to their formal duties or responsibilities. This perspective suggested that such an expansive view was necessary to maintain public trust and prevent corruption in government offices. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's decision to overturn Burr's conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence; instead arguing there were ample indications he had accepted bribes while serving as a state legislator.