Definition
A person who has been formally charged with a crime or criminal offense. "Accused" functions as the generic term for any individual against whom a criminal accusation has been made, encompassing every stage from initial charge through final resolution. The term applies whether the accusation arises by indictment, information, complaint, or other formal charging instrument.
The word carries constitutional weight in American law. The Sixth Amendment refers specifically to "the accused," guaranteeing rights to speedy trial, confrontation of witnesses, compulsory process, and assistance of counsel. This textual usage in the Bill of Rights makes "accused" a term of art with direct constitutional significance, not merely a synonym for defendant.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Simple past and past participle of "accuse" — used informally to describe anyone alleged to have done something wrong, inside or outside formal legal proceedings.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "Charged with offense; as, an accused person." Used broadly to describe anyone under suspicion or blame.
The gap matters. In ordinary speech, a person can be "accused" by a neighbor, a newspaper, or public opinion. In law, "the accused" denotes a specific procedural status: someone against whom a formal criminal charge has been lodged by a government authority. Informal accusations carry no legal consequences; formal accusation triggers constitutional protections and procedural obligations. Researchers reading historical sources must not assume that every appearance of "accused" in a document signals formal criminal proceedings.
Common Confusion
ACCUSED vs. DEFENDANT: The historical dictionaries themselves address this. Black's Law Dictionary favors "accused" as the more appropriate generic term, preferring it over "defendant" (which is more at home in civil proceedings) and "prisoner" (which implies custody). In modern American practice, "defendant" has become the dominant term in criminal trial proceedings, while "accused" tends to appear in constitutional contexts, military law, and earlier authorities. A researcher encountering "the accused" in a 19th-century source should not assume any difference in procedural status from what "the defendant" would signal in a modern source.
ACCUSED vs. SUSPECT: "Suspect" denotes someone under investigation but not yet formally charged. "Accused" indicates that formal charging has occurred. The distinction matters for Fourth and Fifth Amendment analysis, where rights attach at different procedural thresholds.
Why It Matters in Research
Constitutional research is the primary context. Because the Sixth Amendment uses "the accused" directly, courts and commentators have spent considerable energy defining when accused status attaches — that is, at what point a person becomes "the accused" for constitutional purposes. This threshold question affects right-to-counsel analysis, confrontation rights, and speedy trial claims. Researchers working in this area will find the term doing heavy doctrinal lifting in both primary and secondary sources.
In military law, "accused" remains the dominant preferred term. The Uniform Code of Military Justice uses "accused" throughout, and military legal practice has preserved usages that civilian courts have largely replaced with "defendant." A researcher moving between civilian and military sources must account for this terminology shift.
Historical sources through the 19th century and into the early 20th use "accused," "prisoner," and "defendant" with less consistency than modern usage suggests. Bouvier's and early Black's reflect a period when these terms were treated as largely interchangeable in criminal contexts. The modern preference for "defendant" in civilian trial practice is a relatively recent consolidation.
International and comparative sources frequently prefer "accused" over "defendant," following conventions in international criminal tribunals (ICTY, ICC) and civil law tradition translations. Researchers working with international criminal law sources will find "accused" standard where American domestic sources would say "defendant."
Historical Dictionary Support
The three source dictionaries converge on the core definition without meaningful disagreement. All three treat "accused" as the person against whom a criminal accusation has been made, and both editions of Black's affirmatively argue that it is the most appropriate generic term — superior to "prisoner" (which implies custodial status) and "defendant" (which carries civil-practice associations). Bouvier's is more compressed, defining the term by reference to charge without the comparative editorial note.
What the historical dictionaries do not address is the constitutional dimension. Writing before the full incorporation of the Sixth Amendment against the states, neither Bouvier's nor early Black's flags the significance of "accused" as a term drawn directly from constitutional text. Modern researchers need to supply that layer — the historical dictionaries treat the term primarily as a matter of appropriate nomenclature rather than as a constitutional category.
The citation in Black's (1st ed.) to "1 Car. & K. 131" and in the 2nd edition to "1 Car. & K. 1381" points to English nisi prius reports (Carrington & Kirwan), reflecting the common law heritage of the term. Researchers relying on that citation should verify the volume and page reference, as the discrepancy between the two editions suggests a possible transcription error in one.
Jurisdictional Note
In federal and most state civilian courts, "defendant" has effectively displaced "accused" as the working term in criminal proceedings, though "accused" appears in constitutional argument and older authorities. Military courts-martial and international criminal tribunals continue to use "accused" as the standard designation. Researchers should calibrate terminology expectations to the jurisdiction and tribunal type involved.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See: Criminal Procedure; Rights of the Accused; Sixth Amendment