Legal Definitions - propter delictum

Propter delictum is a Latin legal term that translates to "on account of a crime" or "because of a wrong." It refers to a situation where an individual is disqualified, challenged, or deemed unsuitable for a particular role or duty within a legal context due to their involvement in, or connection to, a past crime, misconduct, or wrongful act. This disqualification is typically based on the concern that such a past association could lead to bias, a conflict of interest, or an inability to act impartially.

• Example 1: Juror Disqualification

  Imagine a high-profile murder trial where a potential juror is being screened. During the selection process, it is revealed that this individual was previously convicted of perjury for lying under oath in a different court case. The defense attorney might challenge this juror propter delictum.

  This illustrates the term because the juror's past wrongful act (perjury) directly relates to their credibility and ability to fairly assess testimony, creating a strong reason to believe they might be biased or unsuitable for jury duty in a serious criminal trial.

• Example 2: Judicial Recusal

  Consider a judge assigned to preside over a complex financial fraud case. It later comes to light that this judge was previously censured by a judicial ethics committee and temporarily suspended from the bench for misusing court funds in a prior incident.

  The judge could be compelled to recuse themselves (step down) from the case propter delictum. Their past misconduct involving financial impropriety creates an undeniable appearance of bias or a conflict of interest when overseeing a similar type of financial crime, undermining public confidence in their impartiality.

• Example 3: Administrator Challenge

  Suppose a government agency appoints a new director to oversee its internal investigations unit, which is responsible for rooting out corruption. However, it is subsequently discovered that this appointed director had previously been found liable for significant ethical violations and abuse of power during their tenure in a different public office.

  The appointment of this director could be challenged propter delictum. Their past wrongful acts and ethical breaches directly contradict the integrity and purpose of leading an anti-corruption unit, making them unsuitable for a role that demands unimpeachable conduct and impartiality.