Misprision: A Comprehensive Legal and Historical Analysis

I. Introduction: Defining a Legal Phantom

The term "misprision" occupies a peculiar and often misunderstood space in the Anglo-American legal tradition. At its core, misprision is a legal phantom—a concept whose historical weight far exceeds its modern application, yet one that refuses to vanish entirely from the law books. Its etymological roots lie in the Anglo-French word mesprendre, meaning "to take by mistake" or "to misunderstand," a term that itself derives from the Latin prehendere, "to seize".¹ This dual sense of error and wrongdoing is the conceptual seed from which a complex legal doctrine grew, encompassing everything from a public official's misconduct to a citizen's silent complicity in the face of a crime.²

In legal practice, misprision has historically been divided into distinct categories. The most enduring of these are misprision of treason and misprision of felony, which criminalize the concealment of the most serious offenses against the state and society. A third, now largely archaic, category known as positive misprision once addressed the wrongful commission of an act, such as maladministration by a high official, but has since been absorbed into more specific, modern offenses.⁴ The focus of legal history and modern jurisprudence, therefore, rests almost exclusively on the failure to act—the crime of concealment.

This analysis will chart the evolution of misprision from its origins as a broad civic duty rooted in the collective responsibility of medieval English society to its current status as a narrowly defined, rarely prosecuted, and highly contentious offense in modern American jurisprudence. The history of misprision is, in essence, a history of the ever-shifting relationship between the state and its citizens. It reveals a profound tension between the sovereign's demand for civilian cooperation in maintaining order and the individual's right to liberty, privacy, and, most critically, the right to remain silent. The journey of this single legal term serves as a barometer for the development of Western legal thought, reflecting a gradual but decisive move away from compulsory civic duty and toward a system defined by professionalized law enforcement and the primacy of individual rights. This transformation is most evident in the divergence between the English common law, which required only "bare concealment" for guilt, and American law, which has judicially imposed a requirement for an "affirmative act" of concealment, fundamentally altering the nature of the crime.⁶

II. The Genesis of Misprision: English Common Law and its Duties

The concept of misprision did not emerge in a vacuum. It was the logical product of a medieval legal system in which the maintenance of law and order was not the exclusive domain of a professional class but a duty incumbent upon every subject of the Crown.

A. The Communal Duty to Act

In early English common law, the line between citizen and law enforcement was blurred. The "King's peace" was a collective responsibility, and the community itself was the first line of defense against crime. This principle was most famously embodied in the institution of the "hue and cry," a legal obligation for all able-bodied men in a community to join in the pursuit of a suspected felon upon the raising of an alarm.⁸ Failure to join the chase was itself a punishable offense. This framework established a powerful legal and social precedent: knowledge of a serious crime automatically imposed a duty to act. In such a system, passivity was not an option; it was a dereliction of a fundamental civic obligation. Misprision was the natural extension of this principle, criminalizing the failure to report what one was already duty-bound to prevent or pursue.⁴

B. Blackstone's Systematization: The Two Categories of Misprision

While the roots of misprision are medieval, its systematic definition and transmission to the modern world were largely the work of Sir William Blackstone. In his monumental Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1769), Blackstone organized centuries of common law into a coherent system, providing the legal foundation for the American founders. He defined misprisions broadly as "all such high offenses as are under the degree of capital, but nearly bordering thereon".⁵ He then divided them into two distinct categories: positive and negative.

1. Positive Misprision

Blackstone defined positive misprision as "the commission of something which ought not to be done".⁴ This was a broad, catch-all category for offenses against the state and public order that fell short of treason or felony. Examples included:

• Maladministration of high officials: The wrongful execution of public duties by those in positions of trust.⁵
• Contempts against the King's prerogative: Acts such as refusing to assist the king in his councils or wars, or disobeying his lawful commands.⁵
• Contempts against the King's person and government: Speaking or writing against the king, spreading scandalous stories, or any act that could lessen him in the esteem of his subjects.⁵

The concept of positive misprision is now of purely antiquarian interest.⁴ Its demise illustrates a major trend in the development of modern law: the move away from vague, authority-based offenses toward statutory specificity. The various acts once bundled under "positive misprision" were not decriminalized; rather, they were codified into the more precise and narrowly defined offenses that populate modern criminal codes, such as bribery, perjury, sedition, and obstruction of justice.⁹ This evolution left "negative misprision" as the sole surviving heir to the name.

2. Negative Misprision

Negative misprision, as defined by Blackstone, was "the concealment of something which ought to be revealed".⁴ This is the form of the offense that has endured and is now what is almost universally meant by the term "misprision." It represents the failure to fulfill the communal duty to report a crime. From this single concept branched the two primary forms of the offense that have shaped legal history: misprision of treason and misprision of felony.

III. The Two Faces of Misprision: Treason and Felony

The common law created a clear hierarchy based on the object of one's silence. Concealing a crime against the King was a fundamentally different and more serious matter than concealing a crime against a fellow subject. This distinction reveals that misprision was, at its core, a tool for state preservation first and social order second.

A. Misprision of Treason: A Crime Against the State's Existence

The law has always treated treason as a crime apart, an existential threat to the state itself. Consequently, the duty to report it was absolute and the punishment for failing to do so was exceptionally severe. At early common law, the "bare knowledge and concealment of treason, without any degree of assent thereto" was itself considered high treason, a capital offense.⁴

A pivotal moment came with the passage of England's Treason Act 1554. This statute formally reduced the offense of simple concealment from high treason to the lesser (though still grave) crime of "misprision of treason".⁴ The punishment, however, remained draconian: forfeiture of all goods, loss of the profits of the offender's lands for life, and imprisonment for life.⁴

The central legal challenge in such cases was distinguishing passive concealment from active participation. The law drew a fine but critical line between concealment (misprision) and assent (treason). Any act signifying agreement with the traitorous plot elevated the crime from misprision back to treason. English case law illustrates this distinction vividly. In R v. Tonge (1662), the court held that if a person accidentally comes into the company of conspirators, hears their treasonous plans, says nothing, and never meets with them again, it is only misprision. However, if that person, knowing of the plot, deliberately meets with the conspirators and listens to their discussions, their presence and silence are construed as assent, making them a principal traitor.¹¹ Similarly, in

R v. Walcott (1683), the judge clarified: "For a man to hear of treason accidentally or occasionally and conceal it is but misprision, but if a man will be at consult where treason is hatched and will then conceal it he is guilty of treason therein".¹¹

B. Misprision of Felony: A Crime Against Social Order

Misprision of felony was the common law offense of concealing a felony committed by another person, without having offered any assistance that would make one an accessory to the crime.⁴ Unlike misprision of treason, which was a felony, misprision of felony was classified as a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.⁴

It is crucial to distinguish misprision of felony from two related offenses:

• Accessory After the Fact: An accessory actively assists a felon after the crime to help them evade justice (e.g., hiding the person, destroying evidence). Misprision, in its pure common law form, required no such assistance—only silence.⁷
• Compounding a Felony: This crime involves a victim or witness accepting a reward or other consideration in exchange for an agreement not to prosecute the felon. Misprision, by contrast, is the "bare concealment" of the crime, done without any such bargain.⁷

The existence of this offense reflected the deep-seated societal expectation that every citizen was an agent of law enforcement. To know of a felony was to be deputized by circumstance, with a legal duty to bring the matter to the attention of the authorities.⁴ The graduated scale of punishment—from life imprisonment for concealing treason, to a discretionary fine for concealing a felony, to no punishment at all for concealing a misdemeanor ¹³—demonstrates that the law's primary concern was not silence itself, but the

subject of that silence. The more direct the threat to the sovereign, the more unforgivable the silence became.

IV. The American Inheritance: Statutory Codification and Judicial Transformation

When the United States was formed, it did not adopt the body of English common law as federal law.⁶ However, the principles of common law were deeply ingrained in the minds of the founders and formed the basis for the new nation's statutory framework. The first U.S. Congress, in the Crimes Act of 1790, codified both misprision of treason and misprision of felony into federal law, where they remain to this day.⁸ Yet, in crossing the Atlantic, the doctrine of misprision would undergo a profound judicial transformation.

A. Misprision of Felony: The Federal Statute (18 U.S.C. § 4)

The federal statute governing misprision of felony, 18 U.S.C. § 4, reads:

"Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." ¹⁷

On its face, the statute appears to mirror the English common law offense. However, American courts have interpreted it in a way that fundamentally alters its nature. The most significant departure is the judicial creation of an "affirmative act" requirement. Uncomfortable with the idea of punishing "mere silence," courts have consistently held that the word "conceals" in the statute requires more than passive failure to report. To be guilty of federal misprision, a person must take an active, affirmative step to hide the crime from authorities.⁶ This could include actions like lying to investigators, hiding evidence, or harboring the criminal.⁷

This judicial interpretation has solidified into a clear, four-part test. To secure a conviction for misprision of felony under 18 U.S.C. § 4, a federal prosecutor must prove all four of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. A principal committed and completed a federal felony.
2. The defendant had knowledge of the commission of the felony.
3. The defendant failed to notify a federal authority as soon as possible.
4. The defendant took an affirmative step to conceal the crime. ¹⁵

The modern federal offense is itself a felony, punishable by up to three years in prison.¹⁷ It is rarely prosecuted as a standalone crime. Instead, it is often used by prosecutors as a lesser charge in plea negotiations, particularly in complex white-collar cases, or against individuals who have a special duty to report crimes, such as public officials or corrections officers.¹⁴

B. Misprision of Treason: The Federal Statute (18 U.S.C. § 2382)

The federal statute for misprision of treason, 18 U.S.C. § 2382, is more specific than its felony counterpart:

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or some judge of the United States, or to the governor or some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason..." ²⁰

The elements of this crime are distinct:

1. Allegiance: The accused must "owe allegiance" to the United States. This is a critical jurisdictional requirement that courts have interpreted to apply to U.S. citizens and non-citizen nationals, but generally not to resident aliens, who owe obedience to U.S. laws but not formal allegiance.¹⁰
2. Knowledge: The person must have actual knowledge of an act of treason.
3. Concealment: They must actively conceal this knowledge.
4. Failure to Report: They must fail to report the treason to a high-level official, specifically the President, a federal judge, or a state governor or judge.¹⁰

A conviction for misprision of treason carries a sentence of up to seven years in prison.¹⁰ However, due to the extremely high evidentiary bar for proving the underlying crime of treason itself, the misprision statute is a dead letter in practice and has never been the basis of a successful prosecution in American history.

C. Comparative Analysis of U.S. Federal Misprision Statutes

The distinctions between the two federal misprision statutes highlight the law's continued hierarchical view of silence. The following table provides a direct comparison of these two legal relics.

V. Landmark Cases: Misprision in the Courts

The story of misprision in the United States is one of judicial constraint. Through a series of landmark decisions, courts have progressively narrowed the scope of both misprision of treason and misprision of felony, effectively rewriting the broad statutes inherited from England to align them with American constitutional values.

A. The Shadow of Treason: Setting an Insurmountable Bar

The practical death of misprision of treason can be traced directly to the judiciary's handling of treason itself.

The Trial of Aaron Burr (1807)

Though former Vice President Aaron Burr was tried for treason, not misprision, the case's outcome cast a long shadow over all related offenses. Presiding over the trial, Chief Justice John Marshall issued a famously restrictive interpretation of the Constitution's Treason Clause. He ruled that the charge of "levying war" required an "overt act" of actual, warlike assembly, which had to be witnessed by two people.²² The defense successfully argued for a strict, literal reading of the Constitution that rejected the English common law concept of "constructive treason," where an absent advisor could be punished as a principal actor.²⁵ Since the prosecution could not prove that Burr was physically present at the alleged site of the conspiracy on Blennerhassett's Island, Marshall's ruling made acquittal all but inevitable.²⁴ By establishing such an incredibly high evidentiary standard for treason, the Burr trial made a conviction for the underlying crime nearly impossible, which in turn rendered a prosecution for concealing that crime—misprision of treason—a practical futility.²²

Cramer v. United States (1945)

Over a century later, during World War II, the Supreme Court reinforced the Burr precedent. In Cramer, the Court overturned the treason conviction of a German-American who had met with Nazi saboteurs. The Court held that the "overt act" required by the Constitution could not be an otherwise innocent act (like meeting someone in a restaurant) that was made treasonous only by inference or speculation about the defendant's intent. The act itself, as witnessed by two people, had to be one of giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy.²⁹ This decision further solidified the near-impossibility of securing treason convictions and, by extension, convictions for misprision of treason.

B. Misprision of Felony: The Judicial Whittling of a Crime

While misprision of treason was neutered by constitutional interpretation, misprision of felony has been slowly dismantled by the judicial addition of new, non-statutory elements.

Commonwealth v. Lopes (1945)

This Massachusetts state case proved pivotal. A man had discovered the body of a missing child while engaged in an adulterous affair. He remained silent, not to obstruct the murder investigation, but to conceal his own affair.³⁰ The court overturned his misprision conviction, establishing two powerful defenses. First, it held that the concealment must be driven by an "evil motive" to obstruct justice, not by unrelated personal reasons. Second, it recognized the inherent conflict with the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, acknowledging that forcing a report could compel an individual to expose themselves to prosecution for a different crime.¹⁵

United States v. Olson (2017)

In a modern landmark decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit added another layer of protection for defendants. The court held that to convict someone of misprision of felony, the government must prove that the defendant knew the concealed crime was, in fact, a felony—that is, an offense punishable by more than one year in prison.¹⁶ This new

mens rea (mental state) requirement significantly raises the prosecutorial bar, especially in complex financial or regulatory cases where the distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor can be obscure to a layperson. The Olson decision represents the latest step in a long judicial tradition of narrowing the offense.

This history of judicial modification demonstrates a remarkable pattern of the judiciary acting as a de facto legislature. The text of 18 U.S.C. § 4 simply criminalizes one who "conceals and does not as soon as possible make known" a felony.¹⁷ Yet, over two centuries, courts have layered on requirements that appear nowhere in the statute. First came the "affirmative act" doctrine, then the "evil motive" requirement, and finally the "knowledge of felony status" rule. These are judicial creations, born from a deep-seated discomfort with the statute's breadth and its philosophical clash with modern constitutional norms. The judiciary has effectively rewritten a law passed by Congress to make it conform to contemporary standards of justice.

Modern Prosecutorial Practice

Today, the federal misprision statute functions primarily as a tool for prosecutors. It is a useful charge for securing plea bargains from defendants who might otherwise face more serious charges. For example, in 2018, Michael Leonard pleaded guilty to misprision of felony for his role in concealing a cocaine shipment, likely avoiding more severe drug trafficking charges.³³ Similarly, physicians involved in complex healthcare fraud schemes have pleaded guilty to misprision to resolve cases where they faced lengthy sentences for illegal kickbacks or fraudulent billing.¹⁶ These cases show that the statute's modern utility lies not in trials on the merits, but in the leverage it provides during criminal negotiations.

VI. The Great Debate: Obsolescence, Critique, and Modern Relevance

The long, slow decline of misprision has sparked a vigorous debate among legal scholars and practitioners. Is it, as one scholar termed it, a "dangerous relic" that should be excised from the criminal code, or does it still hold some relevance in modern society?.⁸

A. The Decline and Abolition

The most powerful argument against misprision is that the jurisdictions of its birth and development have largely abandoned it. In the United Kingdom, the offense of misprision of felony was formally abolished by the Criminal Law Act 1967.¹³ It was replaced with a more specific and logical offense: compounding a crime, which criminalizes accepting payment or other consideration in exchange for not disclosing information about an offense to the authorities.⁴ In the United States, most states have also effectively eliminated the common law crime, finding that its purpose is better served by a suite of modern statutes covering obstruction of justice, hindering apprehension, making false statements to police, and accessory after the fact.⁶

B. The Scholarly Critique: Why Misprision is Problematic

Legal scholars have leveled a barrage of criticisms against the retention of misprision of felony laws, focusing on several key flaws.⁷

• Vagueness and Due Process: The crime is inherently imprecise. What constitutes an "affirmative act"? Who are the "proper authorities"? How soon is "as soon as possible"? This vagueness creates a risk of arbitrary enforcement and raises serious due process concerns under the Constitution.³¹
• Philosophical Incompatibility: The offense runs counter to the general principles of Anglo-American law, which rarely imposes a "duty to act" or a "duty to rescue." Criminalizing an omission—a failure to do something—is an exception to the rule and clashes with modern ideals of individual liberty.³¹
• The Fifth Amendment Conflict: The law creates a "cruel trilemma" for a person who has knowledge of a felony but whose report might also incriminate them in some way. They are forced to choose between committing misprision by staying silent, potentially perjuring themselves by lying, or incriminating themselves by telling the truth. This is in direct tension with the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.¹⁵
• Statutory Redundancy: In its modern, judicially-limited form, misprision of felony is almost indistinguishable from other, more clearly defined crimes. An "affirmative act" of concealment often constitutes obstruction of justice or makes one an accessory after the fact, rendering the misprision statute largely superfluous.⁹

C. The Argument for Revival: A Tool for Civic Responsibility?

Despite the overwhelming criticism, a compelling counter-argument exists for retaining a modernized form of misprision. Scholar Robert E. Meale, in a highly cited 1975 law review article, argued that the "time has come, again" for a misprision-like offense.³¹ The core of this argument is that such a law could be a powerful tool to combat bystander apathy, famously exemplified by the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese, where dozens of witnesses did nothing as she was attacked. A duty to report, it is argued, could help reassert a sense of communal responsibility for public safety in an increasingly atomized society.³¹

Recognizing the validity of the historical criticisms, proponents of this view do not advocate for reviving the old common law offense. Instead, they propose a carefully reformulated statute with extensive safeguards to protect individual liberties. Based on Meale's model, a constitutional modern misprision law would include provisions to:

1. Exclude close relatives from the duty to report.
2. Require that knowledge of the crime come from direct, personal observation.
3. Limit the reporting duty to only the most serious violent felonies, such as murder, kidnapping, and aggravated assault.
4. Require only timely reporting to the police, not active intervention, and only when it is safe for the reporter to do so.
5. Explicitly include a robust protection against self-incrimination.
6. Impose only a minor penalty, recognizing that it is a crime of omission.³¹

VII. Conclusion: The Enduring Tension of a Legal Relic

The long and winding history of misprision is a microcosm of the evolution of Western criminal law. It began as an expression of a world where law was a shared burden, where the silence of a neighbor was a betrayal of the community. It evolved into a tool of the Crown, with a clear hierarchy that punished silence about threats to the state far more severely than silence about threats to the populace. Finally, in the American context, it became a legal battleground where the judiciary has consistently intervened to rein in a doctrine it found philosophically at odds with the nation's constitutional ethos.

Today, misprision of treason is a legal ghost, constitutionally sound but practically unenforceable. Misprision of felony survives as a federal statute, but in a form so constrained by judicial interpretation that it bears little resemblance to its common law ancestor. Its primary function is no longer to compel ordinary citizens to report crime, but to serve as a bargaining chip for federal prosecutors in complex criminal cases.

The enduring presence of misprision in the U.S. Code highlights an unresolved tension at the heart of a free society: the conflict between the state's legitimate interest in security and order, and the citizen's cherished right to liberty and non-compulsion. Misprision exists today less as a functional crime and more as a legal artifact—a reminder of a bygone era of communal duty, and a perpetual focal point for the vital, ongoing debate about the proper limits of that duty in a modern, free society.

VIII. Visual Timeline of Misprision

• 1351: The English Parliament enacts the Treason Act 1351, which defines the crime of high treason and serves as the foundation for all subsequent treason law in the Anglo-American tradition.³⁷
• c. 1425–1485: Records from the Middle English period show the term "misprision" being used in legal contexts, typically to describe a wrongful act or neglect of duty by a public official, without a specific connection to treason.³⁸
• 1554: The English Parliament passes the Treason Act 1554. In a landmark change, this law reduces the act of concealing treason from a form of high treason itself (a capital offense) to the lesser, non-capital crime of "misprision of treason".⁴
• c. 1592: A second, distinct meaning of "misprision"—denoting contempt, scorn, or undervaluation—enters the English language, derived from the verb "misprize." This separate etymological path sometimes leads to confusion with the legal term.³⁹
• 1765–1769: Sir William Blackstone publishes his influential Commentaries on the Laws of England, in which he systematically defines "negative misprision" (concealment of treason or felony) and "positive misprision" (official misconduct or contempts), profoundly shaping American legal thought.⁵
• 1790: The first United States Congress passes the Crimes Act of 1790, which formally codifies the offenses of misprision of felony and misprision of treason into federal law, establishing them as statutory crimes in the new republic.⁸
• 1807: The treason trial of former Vice President Aaron Burr concludes. Chief Justice John Marshall's narrow interpretation of the Constitution's "overt act" requirement for treason establishes an extremely high evidentiary bar, making treason prosecutions—and by extension, prosecutions for misprision of treason—exceedingly difficult.²²
• 1945: The U.S. Supreme Court, in Cramer v. United States, reinforces the strict standard for treason, holding that the overt act itself must be an act of giving aid and comfort, not an innocent act made treasonous by intent alone.²⁹
• 1945: In Commonwealth v. Lopes, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court introduces crucial limitations on state-level misprision of felony, holding that the defendant's motive and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination are critical considerations.¹⁵
• 1967: The Parliament of the United Kingdom passes the Criminal Law Act 1967, which formally abolishes the common law offense of misprision of felony, replacing it with a more specific statute against compounding a crime.¹³
• 1975: Legal scholar Robert E. Meale publishes his influential article, "Misprision of Felony: A Crime Whose Time has Come, Again," in the Florida Law Review, arguing for the revival of a modernized, constitutionally-sound version of the offense to combat bystander apathy.³¹
• 2017: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in United States v. Olson, adds a new element to the federal crime of misprision of felony, ruling that prosecutors must prove the defendant knew the concealed crime was a felony.³²

IX. Citations

1. Blackstone, W. (1765-1769). Commentaries on the Laws of England. Oxford University Press. ⁵
2. Bratton v. United States, 73 F.2d 795 (10th Cir. 1934). ⁷
3. Carl, A. (2020). Misapprising Misprision: Why Misprision Of A Felony Is Not A Crime Involving Moral Turpitude. DePaul Law Review, 69(1), 143. ⁴⁰
4. Carlisle v. United States, 83 U.S. 147 (1872). ⁴²
5. Commonwealth v. Lopes, 318 Mass. 453, 61 N.E.2d 849 (1945). ¹⁵
6. Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945). ²⁹
7. Criminal Law Act 1967 (c. 58). (UK). ⁴
8. Crimes Act of 1790, Ch. 9, 1 Stat. 112. ⁸
9. Holland v. State, 302 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 2d Dist. 1974). ³¹
10. Langbein, J. H. (1994). The Historical Origins of the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination at Common Law. Michigan Law Review, 92(5), 1047–1085. ⁴⁴
11. Marshall, J. (1807). Opinion on the Motion to Exclude Evidence in the Trial of Aaron Burr. In United States v. Burr. ²⁴
12. Meale, R. E. (1975). Misprision of Felony: A Crime Whose Time Has Come, Again. Florida Law Review, 28(1), 199. ³¹
13. Shannonhouse, R. G. III. (1974). Misprision of a Federal Felony: Dangerous Relic or Scourge of Malfeasance? University of Baltimore Law Review, 4(1), 59. ⁸
14. South Carolina Law Quarterly. (1952). Misprision of Felony. South Carolina Law Quarterly, 5(2), 233-241. ⁷
15. Treason Act 1554 (1 & 2 Phil. & Mar. c. 10). (England). ⁴
16. 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. ¹⁷
17. 18 U.S.C. § 2382. Misprision of treason. ²⁰
18. United States v. Olson, 856 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2017). ³²

X. Secure This Domain

To continue exploring complex legal terms and secure this premium domain for your own project, please follow the link to purchase misprision.com.

Works cited

1. www.merriam-webster.com, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misprision#:~:text=And%20misprision%20comes%20to%20us,%22)%2C%20itself%20from%20prehendere.
2. misprision - Wiktionary, the free dictionary, accessed August 7, 2025, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/misprision
3. What is misprision? - Publication Coach, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.publicationcoach.com/what-is-misprision/
4. Misprision - Wikipedia, accessed August 7, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misprision
5. Misprisions and Contempts - LONANG Institute, accessed August 7, 2025, https://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england/bla-409/
6. misprision of felony | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/misprision_of_a_felony
7. Misprison of Felony - Scholar Commons, accessed August 7, 2025, https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1351&context=sclr
8. Misprision of a Federal Felony: Dangerous Relic or Scourge of ..., accessed August 7, 2025, https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=ublr
9. Obstruction of Justice: An Overview of Some of the Federal Statutes That Prohibit Interference with Judicial, Executive, or Legislative Activities | Congress.gov, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL34303
10. Misprision of Treason | 18 U.S. Code § 2382 - Federal Criminal Defense Attorney, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/misprision-of-treason
11. Misprision of treason - Wikipedia, accessed August 7, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misprision_of_treason
12. Misprision - Oxford Reference, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100201234
13. en.wikipedia.org, accessed August 7, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misprision#:~:text=Under%20the%20old%20common%20law,categories%20were%20abolished%20in%201967.
14. Misprision of felony - Wikipedia, accessed August 7, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misprision_of_felony
15. Misprision of Felony - Criminal Defense Lawyer, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/misprision-felony.htm
16. Misprision of a Felony – 18 U.S.C. § 4 - Liles Parker PLLC, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.lilesparker.com/misprision-of-a-felony-18-u-s-c-%C2%A7-4/
17. 18 U.S. Code § 4 - Misprision of felony - Law.Cornell.Edu, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4
18. Misprision of a Felony | Aiding and Abetting - Varghese Summersett, accessed August 7, 2025, https://versustexas.com/blog/misprison-aiding-abetting/
19. Misprision of a Felony | 18 U.S. Code § 4 - Federal Criminal Defense Attorney, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/misprision-of-a-felony
20. 18 U.S. Code § 2382 - Misprision of treason - Law.Cornell.Edu, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2382
21. Understand Federal Crime of Treason - Scrofano Law, PC, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.scrofanolaw.com/federal-crime-of-treason/
22. Aaron Burr's trial and the Constitution's treason clause | Constitution ..., accessed August 7, 2025, https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-great-trial-that-tested-the-constitutions-treason-clause
23. Trial of Aaron Burr | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library ..., accessed August 7, 2025, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S3-C1-3/ALDE_00013526/
24. United States v Burr (Opinion and Judgement) - Famous Trials, accessed August 7, 2025, https://famous-trials.com/burr/169-judgement
25. Excerpt from the Argument of Charles Lee in the Aaron Burr Trial, accessed August 7, 2025, https://famous-trials.com/burr/174-leeargument
26. U.S. v. Aaron Burr: The Treason Trial | Federal Judicial Center, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.fjc.gov/history/cases/famous-federal-trials/us-v-aaron-burr-treason-trial
27. Treason | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/treason
28. The Aaron Burr Treason Trial—Suggestions for Judges, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/trials/sfj-burr_0.pdf
29. Cramer v. United States | 325 U.S. 1 (1945) | Justia U.S. Supreme ..., accessed August 7, 2025, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/325/1/
30. Misprision of Felony - LegalMatch, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/misprision-of-felony.html
31. Misprision of Felony: A Crime Whose Time has Come, Again, accessed August 7, 2025, https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2979&context=flr
32. 9th Circ. Raises The Bar On Misprision Of A Felony - Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick: P.L.L.C., accessed August 7, 2025, https://kellogghansen.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/9th-Circ.-Raises-The-Bar-On-Misprision-Of-A-Felony.pdf
33. District of Virgin Islands | Pennsylvania Man Pleads Guilty to ..., accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.justice.gov/usao-vi/pr/pennsylvania-man-pleads-guilty-misprision-felony
34. Misprision of a Federal Felony: Dangerous Relic or Scourge of Malfeasance?, accessed August 7, 2025, https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol4/iss1/4/
35. Criminal Law - Misprision of Felony - Marquette Law Scholarly ..., accessed August 7, 2025, https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3642&context=mulr
36. Misprision of Felony: A Crime Whose Time has Come, Again ..., accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.floridalawreview.com/article/79391
37. High treason in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, accessed August 7, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason_in_the_United_Kingdom
38. misprision - Middle English Compendium - University of Michigan, accessed August 7, 2025, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary/MED28205
39. misprision, n.² meanings, etymology and more | Oxford English Dictionary, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.oed.com/dictionary/misprision_n2
40. "Misapprising Misprision: Why Misprision Of A Felony Is Not A Crime ..., accessed August 7, 2025, https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol69/iss1/5/
41. Why Misprision Of A Felony Is Not A Crime Involving Moral Turpitude - Digital Commons@DePaul, accessed August 7, 2025, https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4111&context=law-review
42. Carlisle v. United States | 83 U.S. 147 (1872) - Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center, accessed August 7, 2025, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/147/
43. Misprision of Felony Not a Crime in Florida - University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository, accessed August 7, 2025, https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2647&context=umlr
44. THE HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF- INCRIMINATION AT COMMON LAW, accessed August 7, 2025, https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Faculty/Langbein_Privilege_Against_Self_Incrimination.pdf