You may have noticed recently that there is a criminal trial going on in New York that involves a former U.S. president. Being a word guy (and since my mind works in weird ways) I started wondering about all of those mysterious Latin words and phrases being bandied about by the many lawyers involved.
So in this look at some of the Latin legal terms that most of us have at least heard of, we’ll explore the etymologies of some of these terms – many of which are (or contain) cognates, meaning that it’s possible to actually figure out what they mean in plain English.
But first, have you ever wondered why attorneys persist in using words and phrases that come from a “dead language” — a language you won’t find spoken by people regularly and passed along to their children as their primary language.
According to “A Guide to Legal Latin” on the website of none other than Lewiston’s own Hardy Wolf & Downing (hardywolf.com) law firm, our current legal system descended from that of Europe’s, “which was influenced by the courts of ancient Rome, where Latin was the predominant language. Most Latin terms still used in law have been passed down from ancient times. These terms are especially preferred when the English term or phrase is overly complex or simply doesn’t exist.”
Some of the more recognizable Latin legal terms are those that are much like the ones we use every day. “In re,” for instance, simply means “in the matter of” something, while “mandamus,” which sounds a lot like “mandate” means “we command.”
“Nolo contendere,” as your ne’er-do-well relative can tell you from experience, is Latin for “I do not wish to contend” and is a plea in a criminal case neither admitting nor denying the charges.
“Caveat emptor,” as most of us already know, translates to “let the buyer beware.” This particular bit of advice has been around since at least 1603 after an Englishman paid £100 for a bezoar stone (a hardened mass of chewed hair found in a ruminant animal’s stomach) that failed to provide the relief its seller claimed it would.
“Mens rea” or “guilty mind,” is the intent to commit a crime. The requirement of “mens rea” insures that individuals are held criminally responsible only for acts committed with a certain level of intent or wrongdoing.
“Actus reus” or “guilty act,” on the other hand, is the actual act of committing a crime.
The commonly used word “alibi” comes from Latin and means “elsewhere.” It’s a defense of having been somewhere other than at the scene of the crime at the time the crime was committed.
And you’re going to need a good alibi if the case against you is “prima facie” (at first sight). A “prima facie” case is one in which the preponderance of evidence is enough to prove the case unless significant evidence to the contrary is presented during trial.
Another more common term, “de facto,” is defined by Merriam-Webster as meaning “in reality, actually,” and is used to describe situations that exist in reality.
The term “de jure,” which means “by law” and refers to something that’s legally established.
“Ex post facto” laws are statutes that retroactively change the legal consequences or status of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. Translation: “Ex post facto” laws would allow the government to charge you for something that wasn’t a crime when you did it, but is a crime under the new law. Which is why “ex post facto” laws are prohibited by the Constitution.
In summary (summarum), my closing argument when it comes to taking responsibility for writing this column is “nemo tenetur seipsum accusare.” (Basically, I refuse on the grounds that I would incriminate myself.)
Jim Witherell of Lewiston is a writer and lover of words whose work includes “L.L. Bean: The Man and His Company” and “Ed Muskie: Made in Maine.” He can be reached at jlwitherell19@gmail.com.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
