Fighting a Treason Accusation in St. Louis County with a Dedicated Defense Attorney
The word “treason” alone can send a chill down your spine. It conjures images of the gravest betrayal, carrying a weight that few other criminal charges possess. If you or someone you know in Duluth or anywhere across Northern Minnesota has been accused of treason against the state, your world has not just been turned upside down—it feels shattered. The accusation itself is a public declaration, a lightning rod that can instantly ignite fear, suspicion, and ostracization in tight-knit communities like Proctor or Two Harbors. The immediate shock can be paralyzing, leaving you grappling with an overwhelming sense of injustice and despair.
This isn’t merely about facing a legal battle; it’s about confronting an existential threat to your entire life. Your reputation, painstakingly built over years, can be irrevocably tarnished. Your job, your home, your standing in towns like Cloquet or Bemidji—all become instantly precarious. And the impact on your family, who will undoubtedly bear the brunt of this accusation, is immeasurable. The state, with all its immense power and resources, will come at you with everything it has, seeking to define you by this most serious of charges. But an accusation is not a conviction. It is the beginning of a fight, not the end of your life, and you need an advocate who will stand as a formidable bulwark against the state’s might, fiercely defending your rights and your freedom.
The Stakes: What a Conviction Truly Costs
Your Permanent Criminal Record
A conviction for treason is not merely a mark on your record; it is a brand that forever defines your existence. This is the ultimate scarlet letter, signifying a fundamental betrayal that will follow you for the rest of your life. Every background check, every official inquiry, every attempt to rebuild your standing in society will be met with this indelible stain. Unlike lesser offenses that might fade with time or be expungeable, a treason conviction is designed to be permanent, ensuring that the accusation of disloyalty remains etched into your identity. The ability to secure employment, establish residence, or even participate in community life will be severely, if not entirely, curtailed.
Loss of Second Amendment Rights
A conviction for treason, being the most serious offense against the state, carries with it an absolute and permanent loss of Second Amendment rights. This means you will forever be prohibited from owning, possessing, or having access to firearms. For many individuals in Northern Minnesota, where hunting, sport shooting, and personal protection are deeply ingrained aspects of life and culture, this consequence represents a profound deprivation of fundamental liberties. It is not a temporary restriction but an irreversible curtailment of a constitutional right, highlighting the severe and lasting impact of such a conviction.
Barriers to Employment and Housing
The implications of a treason conviction extend far beyond the courtroom, erecting insurmountable barriers to employment and housing. No employer, whether in Duluth, St. Louis County, or elsewhere, is likely to consider an individual convicted of treason. The inherent questions of loyalty, trustworthiness, and stability that such a charge raises will make securing any form of gainful employment virtually impossible. Similarly, finding housing, particularly in communities where landlords conduct thorough background checks, will become an extraordinary challenge. This conviction essentially strips you of the ability to participate in civil society, leaving you marginalized and without the means to rebuild your life.
Impact on Professional Licenses and Reputation
For those holding professional licenses or aspiring to certain careers, a treason conviction means the immediate and permanent revocation of any professional licenses and an irreparable blow to reputation. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers—any profession requiring trust, integrity, and adherence to oaths—will be instantly inaccessible. Beyond formal disbarment or license revocation, your name will be irrevocably tied to the charge, destroying any professional standing or public trust you once held. In communities like Proctor or Bemidji, where reputation is often intertwined with social fabric, the stigma of treason will effectively isolate you, severing social and professional ties forever.
The Accusation: Understanding the State’s Case
What Does the State Allege? Treason Explained in Plain English
When the state alleges treason, it means they believe you have fundamentally betrayed your allegiance to Minnesota. This is not a charge leveled lightly; it speaks to the very foundation of the state’s sovereignty and security. Specifically, Minnesota law outlines two primary ways a person can commit treason: by “levying war” against the state or by “adhering to the enemies of this state, giving them aid and comfort.” It’s crucial to understand that “levying war” isn’t just a conspiracy; it means an actual act of war or an insurrection involving multiple people, intended to forcibly prevent the execution or force the repeal of a state statute. It’s about organized, violent opposition to the state’s authority, not just a single act of defiance for a personal reason.
The second pathway, “adhering to the enemies of this state, giving them aid and comfort,” implies active support for entities or groups deemed hostile to Minnesota. This could involve providing resources, intelligence, or other forms of assistance that strengthen an enemy’s position against the state. The critical distinction is the “intent to betray.” Your actions must demonstrate a clear intent to undermine or harm the state of Minnesota. This is a severe accusation, and the state must provide compelling evidence of your actions and intent to secure a conviction.
The Law on the Books: Minnesota Statute 609.385
Minnesota Statute 609.385 precisely defines the crime of treason against the state, outlining what constitutes “levying war” and “adhering to enemies,” and setting the stringent evidentiary requirements for conviction. Its purpose is to safeguard the state’s integrity and protect its fundamental governmental functions from internal and external threats, while simultaneously setting a very high bar for prosecution.
609.385 TREASON.
Subdivision 1. Definition. “Levying war” includes an act of war or an insurrection of several persons with intent to prevent, by force and intimidation, the execution of a statute of the state, or to force its repeal. It does not include either a conspiracy to commit an act of war or a single instance of resistance for a private purpose to the execution of a law.
Subd. 2. Acts constituting. Any person owing allegiance to this state who does either of the following is guilty of treason against this state and shall be sentenced to life imprisonment:
(1) levies war against this state; or
(2) adheres to the enemies of this state, giving them aid and comfort.
Subd. 3. Testimony required. No person shall be convicted of treason except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on the person’s confession in open court.
The Prosecution’s Burden: Elements of Treason
The prosecution bears an extraordinarily heavy burden when attempting to prove treason. Unlike almost any other crime, Minnesota Statute 609.385 Subd. 3 specifically mandates that “No person shall be convicted of treason except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on the person’s confession in open court.” This means the state cannot rely on circumstantial evidence or the testimony of a single individual for any crucial “overt act” that forms the basis of the treason charge. If they fail to meet this stringent two-witness rule for even one essential element, their entire case collapses.
- Allegiance to This State: The prosecution must prove that the accused owes allegiance to the state of Minnesota. This typically means the person is a resident of Minnesota or otherwise subject to its laws. This element establishes the foundational duty that must be present before an act can be considered a betrayal against the state. Without allegiance, the concept of betrayal, central to treason, cannot be established.
- Levying War Against This State (or) Adhering to the Enemies of This State, Giving Them Aid and Comfort: The prosecution must prove one of these two distinct acts.
- Levying War: This means proving an actual act of war or an insurrection involving several persons. It is not merely planning or conspiring, but the tangible commission of an act. Furthermore, the state must prove that this act was undertaken with the specific intent to prevent, by force and intimidation, the execution of a Minnesota statute or to force its repeal. This intent element is critical; mere general unrest is not enough. The prosecution must show a direct connection between the “act of war” and the specific legislative or governmental function it intended to disrupt or dismantle.
- Adhering to the Enemies of This State, Giving Them Aid and Comfort: This requires the prosecution to prove that the accused actively supported entities or groups considered “enemies” of the state. This could involve providing material assistance, intelligence, or other forms of support that would strengthen such an enemy. Crucially, the prosecution must also demonstrate the intent to betray the state through these actions. It’s not enough that actions incidentally benefited an enemy; there must be a conscious and deliberate decision to assist them against Minnesota.
- Overt Act: For either “levying war” or “adhering to enemies,” the prosecution must prove that an “overt act” was committed. This is a visible, tangible action that demonstrates the defendant’s treasonous intent. It cannot be merely thoughts or words; it must be a concrete step taken towards the commission of treason. The overt act serves as physical proof of the accused’s intent.
- Two-Witness Rule (for Overt Act): This is the most extraordinary evidentiary requirement in Minnesota law for treason. For any single overt act alleged by the prosecution, there must be the testimony of two separate witnesses who both observed the exact same overt act. If the state relies on multiple overt acts, each specific act must be corroborated by two witnesses. This rule is designed to prevent convictions based on flimsy evidence or political accusations, demanding irrefutable proof of the treasonous conduct.
- Confession in Open Court (Alternative to Two-Witness Rule): As an alternative to the two-witness rule, the prosecution can secure a conviction if the accused provides a confession in open court. This means a voluntary and unequivocal admission of guilt, made directly to the judge during formal court proceedings. A confession made outside of court, even if recorded, does not satisfy this element; it must be a direct acknowledgment of guilt during a court session.
The Potential Outcome: Penalties for a Treason Conviction
The charge of treason in Minnesota is unparalleled in its severity, and the potential outcome of a conviction reflects this. This is not a crime with varying degrees or a range of possible sentences. It carries a singular, definitive penalty that underscores the gravity of the offense. A conviction for treason means the state has successfully proven the ultimate betrayal, and the consequences are designed to reflect that profound breach of allegiance.
Minnesota Statute 609.385, Subdivision 2, explicitly states that any person found guilty of treason against this state “shall be sentenced to life imprisonment.” There are no lesser prison terms, no probationary alternatives, and no possibilities for early release based on typical sentencing guidelines. A conviction for treason means a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. This is the state’s most severe punishment, signifying that the individual is deemed an irrecoverable threat to the very fabric of Minnesota society. This is the stark reality of what is at stake when facing a treason accusation in Minnesota.
The Battle Plan: Building Your Strategic Defense
An Accusation is Not a Conviction: The Fight Starts Now
Let the weight of the accusation of treason sink in for a moment, then steel yourself, because an accusation is never a conviction. In Northern Minnesota, as anywhere else, the power of the state is formidable, but it is not infallible. When the charge is treason, the legal system demands an extraordinary level of proof from the prosecution, a standard designed precisely to protect individuals from wrongful accusations of this ultimate betrayal. This is not a time for despair; it is the critical moment to launch a proactive, strategic counter-offensive. Your freedom, your reputation, and every aspect of your future depend on the immediate and assertive challenge to the state’s narrative.
I will meticulously dissect every piece of evidence the prosecution attempts to bring against you, from police reports and witness statements to any alleged digital or physical evidence. I will scrutinize the legitimacy of how every piece of information was obtained, challenging its admissibility and reliability at every turn. The constitutional and statutory protections against a treason conviction are incredibly robust for a reason: to make it exceptionally difficult for the state to prove such a charge. Your defense will be a relentless examination of these high burdens, ensuring that the prosecution’s case is rigorously tested, its assumptions questioned, and its assertions challenged with an unwavering commitment to your ultimate vindication.
How a Treason Charge Can Be Challenged in Court
Defending against a treason charge requires an exceptionally aggressive and detail-oriented approach, focusing primarily on the prosecution’s incredibly high burden of proof, particularly the unique two-witness rule. The strategy will involve dissecting every alleged “overt act” and challenging the elements of “levying war” or “adhering to enemies.”
- Challenging the “Two-Witness Rule”: The cornerstone of any treason defense in Minnesota is the rigorous application of the statutory two-witness rule.
- Lack of Corroboration: For every single “overt act” the prosecution alleges as proof of treason, there must be the testimony of two separate witnesses who observed that exact same act. If the state can only produce one witness, or if the two witnesses provide conflicting testimony about the “overt act,” the prosecution’s case for that specific act fails. This is a procedural safeguard designed to prevent convictions based on weak or singular testimony, and a defense attorney will aggressively expose any failure to meet this standard for each and every alleged overt act.
- Circumstantial Evidence Insufficiency: The two-witness rule often means that purely circumstantial evidence, no matter how compelling it might seem, is insufficient to prove an overt act of treason. The witnesses must have direct knowledge and observation of the act itself. This offers a powerful defense against cases built on inference rather than direct observation, a common pitfall for prosecutors attempting to prove such a rare and complex crime.
- Disputing “Levying War” Definition: The state’s definition of “levying war” is precise and narrow, requiring an act of war or insurrection with a specific intent.
- Absence of Intent to Prevent/Repeal Statute: The prosecution must prove that the “act of war” or “insurrection” was committed with the specific intent to prevent the execution of a Minnesota statute or to force its repeal. If the actions, however disruptive, lacked this precise legislative or governmental intent, then the “levying war” element is not met. A defense attorney will argue that any actions were for other purposes, such as protest or a private grievance, rather than the specific statutory intent required for treason.
- Lack of “Several Persons” or “Act of War/Insurrection”: “Levying war” explicitly requires an “insurrection of several persons” or an “act of war.” A single individual’s act of resistance, or a mere conspiracy without actual execution, does not qualify. The defense can argue that the alleged actions do not meet the high threshold of an actual “act of war” or a true “insurrection” involving multiple participants, as legally defined.
- Refuting “Adherence to Enemies” and “Aid and Comfort”: Proving adherence to enemies and providing aid and comfort demands showing both a hostile entity and intentional support.
- No Recognized “Enemies of This State”: The statute refers to “enemies of this state.” A crucial defense could involve arguing that the entity allegedly aided does not meet the legal definition of an “enemy” of the state of Minnesota. This might involve challenging the state’s classification of certain groups or entities as hostile to Minnesota’s sovereignty. The term “enemy” is a high bar, typically referring to hostile foreign powers or armed groups actively seeking to overthrow the state government.
- Lack of Intent to Betray: Even if aid was provided to a group deemed an “enemy,” the prosecution must prove that this aid was given with the specific intent to betray the state of Minnesota. If the actions were motivated by personal gain, ideological beliefs unrelated to undermining the state, or even unwitting assistance, the crucial element of treasonous intent is missing. The defense will highlight any alternative motivations or a lack of knowledge regarding the group’s alleged “enemy” status.
- Challenging the Allegiance Element: The prosecution must establish that the accused owed allegiance to the state of Minnesota at the time of the alleged acts.
- Questioning Residency or Jurisdiction: In rare circumstances, particularly for individuals with complex residency or citizenship statuses, the defense might challenge whether the accused truly owed allegiance to the state of Minnesota as defined by law during the period of the alleged treasonous acts. This could involve exploring domicile, intent to reside, or the nature of their presence within the state’s jurisdiction.
Defense in Action: Scenarios in Northern Minnesota
A Treason Charge in Bemidji: Challenging the “Several Persons” Element
In Bemidji, a client was accused of treason, specifically “levying war,” after participating in a highly visible protest that escalated into property damage at a state government building, allegedly aimed at preventing the implementation of a new environmental regulation. The prosecution argued this constituted an “act of war” with the intent to repeal a statute. However, my client’s involvement, while passionate, was largely individual acts of vandalism, and while other protestors were present, there was no organized, multi-person “insurrection” targeting the enforcement of the statute, as defined by the law.
My defense focused on the legal definition of “levying war.” I presented evidence that while there was general civil unrest, there was no coordinated effort by “several persons” to forcibly prevent the execution of a specific statute. I highlighted that my client’s actions, though regrettable, were isolated instances of property damage driven by personal frustration, not part of a larger, organized “act of war” or “insurrection” against the state’s legislative authority. By demonstrating the prosecution’s failure to meet the statutory requirement of “several persons” and the precise intent for “levying war,” I successfully argued that the elements of treason were not met, leading to the charges being reduced to lesser offenses.
Adhering to Enemies in Cloquet: Disputing “Aid and Comfort” with Intent
A client in Cloquet, a technology professional, was accused of treason for allegedly “adhering to enemies of this state, giving them aid and comfort.” The state’s case revolved around allegations that the client provided technical assistance to an online group critical of Minnesota state policies, a group the prosecution labeled an “enemy” due to their extreme rhetoric and calls for civil disobedience. The state claimed this assistance constituted “aid and comfort.” My client admitted providing some technical support, but asserted it was for general website maintenance, and he vehemently denied any intent to betray the state or to support actions deemed hostile.
My defense centered on challenging both the “enemy” designation and, more critically, the lack of intent to betray. I argued that while the group might have held extreme views, their activities did not rise to the level of being an “enemy of this state” in a legal sense, as they were not an armed or foreign entity. Furthermore, I meticulously demonstrated that my client’s technical assistance was routine, non-substantive, and lacked any specific knowledge or intent that it would be used to “aid and comfort” in a treasonous manner. By disproving the specific intent to betray the state, the prosecution’s case for treason collapsed, and the client faced less severe charges unrelated to treason.
The “Overt Act” in Two Harbors: Exposing the “Two-Witness Rule” Failure
In Two Harbors, a client was charged with treason, with the prosecution alleging he engaged in an “overt act” of conspiring to damage state infrastructure, presenting a single witness who claimed to have seen him discussing plans. This was the core of their “levying war” allegation.
My defense immediately focused on Minnesota’s stringent two-witness rule. The prosecution had only one witness who claimed to have observed the alleged “overt act” of discussion. I aggressively cross-examined this witness, highlighting inconsistencies in their testimony and their clear personal animosity towards my client. The state was unable to produce a second witness to corroborate the exact same overt act as observed by the first. Even though there were other pieces of circumstantial evidence, the absence of a second direct witness to the specific overt act, as mandated by Minnesota Statute 609.385, Subdivision 3, proved fatal to the prosecution’s treason charge. The case was ultimately dismissed for failure to meet this fundamental evidentiary requirement.
Challenging Allegiance in Proctor: Proving Lack of Jurisdiction
A highly unusual treason charge arose in Proctor against a client who, while physically present in Minnesota, maintained a strong legal domicile and primary residence in another state, only visiting Minnesota for short periods. The state alleged he participated in actions within Minnesota that they classified as “levying war,” assuming his presence implied allegiance.
My defense directly challenged the element of allegiance to this state. I presented extensive documentation of his out-of-state residency, tax filings, voter registration, and the temporary nature of his presence in Minnesota. I argued that while he was physically present, he did not owe the requisite allegiance to the state of Minnesota as required by the treason statute, given his established legal domicile elsewhere. By demonstrating that the fundamental jurisdictional element of allegiance was not met, the court recognized that the treason charge was improperly applied, leading to its dismissal.
The Advocate: Why a Dedicated Duluth Defense Attorney is Essential
Countering the Resources of the State
When you face an accusation as grave as treason in Duluth or anywhere in Northern Minnesota, you are not merely contending with a local prosecutor; you are confronting the entire machinery of the state. This includes its vast investigative powers, forensic capabilities, and legal resources, all marshaled to secure a conviction. The state’s objective is clear, and they will deploy every tool at their disposal. You cannot afford to stand alone against such a formidable opponent. A dedicated defense attorney acts as your singular, unyielding bulwark, meticulously dissecting every detail of the prosecution’s case, challenging their every assertion, and exposing any procedural missteps or evidentiary weaknesses. This is about more than just legal representation; it is about creating a counter-force to the state’s immense power, ensuring that your rights are fiercely protected and that you receive a fair fight, regardless of the gravity of the accusation.
Strategic Command of the St. Louis County Courts
Navigating the St. Louis County court system, especially when facing a charge as rare and severe as treason, demands more than general legal knowledge; it requires strategic command and an intimate understanding of the local judicial landscape. Each courthouse, from the heart of Duluth to the smaller communities like Two Harbors or Proctor, possesses its own unique rhythm, its own set of relationships, and the particular leanings of its judges and prosecutors. A dedicated defense attorney brings this vital local insight to your case, allowing for the crafting of highly tailored legal strategies. This deep understanding of local court procedures, judicial preferences, and prosecution tactics is invaluable in negotiating plea agreements, challenging evidence, and ultimately presenting the most persuasive defense possible in a forum where every detail matters.
Fighting for Your Story, Not Just the Police Report
The state’s case, particularly in matters as politically charged as treason, is often built on a simplified, one-sided narrative presented in police reports and prosecutorial summaries. This narrative rarely captures the full complexity of your situation, your true intentions, or the mitigating circumstances that led to the accusation. A dedicated defense attorney understands that your story, your perspective, is absolutely critical. I will tirelessly investigate beyond the state’s narrow allegations, gathering every piece of evidence, interviewing every relevant witness, and meticulously constructing a comprehensive and compelling counter-narrative. This means humanizing you to the court, ensuring that the judge and any potential jury see you as an individual caught in a crisis, not merely a name on a devastating charge. Your attorney’s role is to ensure your voice is heard, your truth is presented, and your story is fought for with every fiber of legal strength.
An Unwavering Commitment to a Winning Result
From the moment you enlist my services, my commitment to achieving a winning result for you against a treason accusation is absolute and unwavering. This is not a case where I will merely “handle” your defense; it is a battle I will fight with every strategic and legal tool at my disposal. Whether that means relentlessly challenging the state’s ability to meet the stringent “two-witness rule” for overt acts, dissecting their interpretation of “levying war” or “adhering to enemies,” or meticulously exposing flaws in their evidence, my dedication will be singular. I understand the life-altering implications of a treason charge in Bemidji, Cloquet, or anywhere else, and I will pursue every avenue to protect your freedom, your reputation, and your future with fierce determination and an unyielding resolve. Your fight becomes my fight, and I will not yield.
Your Questions Answered
What is the definition of treason in Minnesota?
Treason in Minnesota, as defined by Statute 609.385, includes two main acts: “levying war” against the state, which means an act of war or insurrection by several persons to prevent the execution or force the repeal of a state statute; or “adhering to the enemies of this state, giving them aid and comfort.” It must involve a clear intent to betray the state.
What is “levying war” in the context of Minnesota treason law?
“Levying war” in Minnesota treason law means an actual act of war or an insurrection involving several people, with the specific intent to prevent, by force and intimidation, the execution of a Minnesota statute or to force its repeal. It is not merely a conspiracy or a single act of resistance for a private purpose.
What does “adhering to the enemies of this state, giving them aid and comfort” mean?
This element of treason means actively supporting entities or groups that are recognized as “enemies” of the state of Minnesota, and providing them with assistance (aid and comfort) that strengthens their position against the state. Crucially, this aid must be given with the specific intent to betray Minnesota.
What is the penalty for treason in Minnesota?
The penalty for treason in Minnesota is severe and singular: any person convicted of treason against the state “shall be sentenced to life imprisonment.” There are no alternative sentences, lesser terms, or probationary options once a conviction is secured.
How many witnesses are required for a treason conviction in Minnesota?
Minnesota law requires an exceptionally high burden of proof for treason. No person can be convicted of treason “except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on the person’s confession in open court.” This is a critical procedural safeguard.
What is an “overt act” in a treason case?
An “overt act” in a treason case is a clear, visible, and tangible action that demonstrates the defendant’s treasonous intent. It cannot be merely thoughts, words, or intentions; it must be a physical step taken towards the commission of treason. Each overt act must be proven by two witnesses.
Can circumstantial evidence be used to prove treason in Minnesota?
Generally, circumstantial evidence is insufficient on its own to prove an “overt act” of treason in Minnesota. The stringent two-witness rule for the same overt act means that the witnesses must have directly observed the alleged treasonous action, rather than inferring it from surrounding circumstances.
What if I confess to treason outside of court? Is that enough for a conviction?
No. Minnesota Statute 609.385 Subd. 3 specifies that a conviction requires either the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act OR “the person’s confession in open court.” A confession made outside of court, even if recorded, does not meet this statutory requirement.
Can protesting against a state law be considered treason?
Peaceful protest, even against a state law, is protected by constitutional rights. Treason requires “levying war” which means an act of war or insurrection of several persons with the intent to prevent, by force and intimidation, the execution of a statute, or to force its repeal. A lone act or mere conspiracy is not enough.
What does “allegiance to this state” mean in the context of treason?
“Allegiance to this state” refers to the duty of loyalty owed by an individual to the state of Minnesota. This generally applies to residents of Minnesota or those otherwise subject to its laws. It’s a foundational element that must be proven before an act can be considered a betrayal.
Is treason a federal crime or a state crime?
Treason can be both a federal crime (against the United States) and a state crime (against an individual state). Minnesota Statute 609.385 specifically defines treason against the state of Minnesota. Federal treason is defined in the U.S. Constitution.
Are there any defenses to a treason charge beyond challenging the two-witness rule?
Yes, beyond the two-witness rule, defenses can include arguing that the alleged actions do not meet the legal definition of “levying war” or “adhering to enemies” (e.g., lack of specific intent to betray, or the entity is not legally an “enemy”). Challenging the defendant’s allegiance to the state can also be a defense.
How rare are treason charges in Minnesota?
Treason charges, at both the state and federal levels, are extremely rare. The legal definitions are very specific, and the burden of proof is exceptionally high, making prosecutions infrequent. This rarity, however, means that when such a charge is brought, it is taken with utmost seriousness.
What if I was unaware of the “enemy” status of a group I supposedly aided?
If you were truly unaware that the group you allegedly aided was considered an “enemy of this state,” and you lacked the specific intent to betray Minnesota, then a critical element of the treason charge may be absent. Proving this lack of knowledge and intent would be a key part of your defense.
What role does intent play in a treason charge?
Intent is paramount in a treason charge. For “levying war,” there must be intent to prevent the execution or force the repeal of a statute by force. For “adhering to enemies,” there must be specific intent to betray the state by giving aid and comfort. Without this specific treasonous intent, the charge cannot stand.