Legal Definitions - ob reverentiam personae et metum perjurii

The Latin phrase ob reverentiam personae et metum perjurii translates to "on account of reverence to the person and the fear of perjury." This historical legal principle recognized that certain individuals might be placed in an impossible situation if compelled to testify or answer specific questions in court.

Specifically, it allowed a witness to be excused from testifying, or to decline to answer particular questions, if doing so would create a strong likelihood that they would commit perjury (lie under oath). This likelihood could arise from two main reasons:

• Reverence or loyalty to another person: The witness might feel such deep respect, loyalty, or familial obligation towards someone involved in the case that they would rather lie under oath than provide testimony that would harm that person.
• Fear of admitting a damaging act: The witness might be forced to reveal a truth about themselves that was so shameful, incriminating, or socially ruinous that they would commit perjury to avoid admitting it.

This principle is considered a historical precursor to modern protections like the Fifth Amendmentprivilege against self-incrimination, which allows individuals to refuse to answer questions that might incriminate them.

Here are some examples illustrating this historical principle:

• Example 1 (Loyalty to a Superior): Imagine a medieval squire called to testify in a dispute involving his knight. The squire possesses knowledge that, if revealed truthfully, would severely damage his knight's honor and standing in the community. Due to his profound loyalty and respect for his lord, the squire might be strongly inclined to lie under oath to protect his knight's reputation rather than speak a damaging truth. Under the principle of ob reverentiam personae et metum perjurii, the squire might have been excused from answering such questions, acknowledging the immense pressure to commit perjury out of reverence for his knight.

• Example 2 (Fear of Social Ruin): Consider a historical village court where a respected merchant is asked about a minor financial discrepancy. Unbeknownst to the court, the merchant is secretly involved in a much more serious, socially condemned practice, such as usury, which could lead to public ostracism and ruin. If answering truthfully about the minor discrepancy might inadvertently expose his deeper, more damaging secret, he might choose to lie about the smaller matter to protect himself from the catastrophic social and economic consequences of revealing the larger truth. This principle would historically recognize the "fear of perjury" stemming from the desire to avoid personal ruin.

• Example 3 (Protecting a Family Member): In a historical legal proceeding, a wife is called upon to testify about her husband's business dealings. She knows that revealing the full truth would lead to her husband's severe punishment, potentially resulting in the family's destitution. Her strong marital loyalty and desire to protect her husband and children from hardship might compel her to commit perjury rather than provide testimony that would devastate her family. The principle of ob reverentiam personae et metum perjurii would acknowledge this profound dilemma, potentially allowing her to decline to answer questions that would force such a choice.