Legal Definitions - ignoramus

Ignoramus is a historical legal term originating from Law Latin, meaning "We do not know." In past legal proceedings, this notation was used by a grand jury when they reviewed a proposed criminal charge, known as a "bill of indictment." If the grand jury concluded that there was not enough evidence or sufficient reason to proceed with a full criminal trial, they would endorse the bill with "ignoramus." This action signified their rejection of the accusation, preventing the case from moving forward. Today, the phrase "not a true bill" is used to convey the same outcome.

Here are some examples illustrating how "ignoramus" would have been applied historically:

• Example 1: Insufficient Evidence

  Imagine a prosecutor in the 18th century presenting a bill of indictment against a local merchant for fraud. The evidence consists solely of a disgruntled former employee's vague accusations, without any supporting documents, financial records, or corroborating witness testimony. After hearing the evidence, the grand jury determines that the accusations are unsubstantiated and lack concrete proof to warrant a trial. They would endorse the bill with "ignoramus," indicating their decision that the presented evidence was too weak to proceed.

• Example 2: Unreliable Accusation

  Consider a situation where a grand jury is asked to indict a prominent citizen for a serious offense, based primarily on the testimony of a single witness known for making exaggerated claims and holding a personal grudge against the accused. The grand jury carefully questions the witness and finds their account to be inconsistent and potentially motivated by malice, rather than fact. Doubting the credibility of the accusation, the grand jury would mark the bill "ignoramus," signifying their belief that the charge was not adequately supported to justify a trial.

• Example 3: Lack of Direct Connection

  Suppose a grand jury is presented with a bill of indictment for a burglary, and the only evidence linking the accused to the crime is that they were seen walking in the general vicinity hours before the incident. There are no fingerprints, no stolen goods found in their possession, and no other witnesses placing them at the scene during the actual crime. The grand jury, finding the connection between the accused and the crime too tenuous and speculative, would endorse the bill with "ignoramus." This decision would reflect their judgment that there wasn't enough direct or compelling evidence to connect this specific individual to the offense and send them to trial.