CREDIBLE

6 definitions found across Law Mind sources

← Dictionary
CREDIBLEAuthored
The Law Mind • 1130 words
Definition
Credible, in legal usage, means worthy of belief and entitled to credit. The term operates in two related but distinct contexts within the law of evidence: 1. A credible witness is one whose testimony a fact-finder may reasonably believe — not merely someone who is legally permitted to testify (that is competency), but someone whose account carries sufficient trustworthiness, knowledge, and disinterestedness to merit genuine weight. 2. Credible evidence is evidence that is believable on its face and capable of supporting a finding of fact — as distinguished from evidence that is technically admissible but inherently implausible or unreliable. The term also appears in statutory and procedural contexts — such as requirements for a "credible witness" to an affidavit, notarization, or will execution — where it carries a more formalized meaning: a person of known good character and veracity who can attest to the identity or sincerity of another. ---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Believable or plausible; dependable, trustworthy, or reliable; authentic or convincing. Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Capable of being credited or believed; worthy of belief; entitled to confidence; trustworthy. The common meaning and the legal meaning are closely aligned in substance, but the legal context adds precision that ordinary usage obscures. In common speech, "credible" describes the quality of an assertion or a person generally. In law, credibility is a formal assessment made at a specific procedural moment — after testimony is given — and it is carefully distinguished from competency, which governs whether a witness may testify at all. A witness can be competent but not credible, or credible but only partially so. That distinction, invisible in ordinary usage, is essential in legal research. ---
Common Confusion
CREDIBLE vs. COMPETENT: These terms are frequently conflated in older legal texts and in everyday speech, but they address different questions entirely. Competency is a threshold question: is this person legally qualified to give testimony? Credibility is an evaluative question: should the fact-finder believe what this person has said? Burrill's Dictionary is explicit on this point, noting that "this term is never used as synonymous to competent" and that credibility "presupposes the evidence given." A child witness, for example, may be found competent to testify but may receive limited credibility; a witness of impeccable reputation may be competent and highly credible. Confusing the two terms in historical sources can lead a researcher to misread rulings on witness qualification as substantive credibility assessments, or vice versa. ---
Why It Matters in Research
Credibility doctrine is one of the most heavily litigated areas of evidence law, and the term appears across an enormous range of source types — case law, evidence treatises, procedural rules, and statutory requirements for instruments like wills, affidavits, and notarizations. Researchers need to be alert to context. In evidence law, credibility belongs to the fact-finder. Courts do not resolve credibility on appeal in most systems; they ask only whether there was sufficient credible evidence to support the verdict below. This means that discussions of "credibility" in appellate opinions often operate at a structural or doctrinal level, not as first-order assessments of whether a witness was actually believed. Reading appellate language as if it were a trial court's credibility finding is a common analytical error. In statutory contexts — particularly for wills, powers of attorney, and notarial acts — "credible witness" has a technical meaning that varies by jurisdiction and era. Nineteenth-century statutes frequently required that subscribing witnesses to a will be "credible," meaning not merely present and observing but also competent to testify and free from disqualifying interest. Researchers working in probate or property law need to check whether a jurisdiction at a given time treated interest as a competency bar, a credibility problem, or both. The corpus contains significant historical material on impeachment of witnesses, prior inconsistent statements, and character evidence for truthfulness — all of which are mechanisms for attacking credibility. Those materials will use "credibility" in ways that track the formal distinction from competency. Pay attention to when a source is discussing the threshold question (can this witness testify?) versus the weight question (should this testimony be believed?). ---
Historical Dictionary Support
The four source dictionaries converge on the core definition: credible means worthy of belief and entitled to credit. Black's (both editions) and Burrill agree on this formulation without meaningful variation. Burrill provides the most analytically useful entry. His insistence that credible is "never used as synonymous to competent" and his citation to Lord Mansfield for the proposition that credibility presupposes evidence already given are substantively important — they locate the term precisely in the evidentiary sequence and push back against the collapsing of two distinct concepts. This is historically significant because earlier practice was not always so clean: some jurisdictions did treat certain credibility-undermining facts (interest, conviction of crime) as competency bars rather than impeachment grounds, and the gradual separation of the two concepts across the nineteenth century is reflected in the shift in dictionary treatment. Black's 2nd edition adds the useful sub-entry on "credible person," defining it as someone entitled to have an oath or affidavit accepted as reliable not only on account of veracity but also intelligence, knowledge of the circumstances, and disinterested relation to the matter. This formulation is particularly relevant to notarial and probate contexts. The Anderson's entry in the source material appears to be a misfiled excerpt unrelated to "credible" — it addresses averment and damages. Researchers should treat it as a transcription artifact and not as Anderson's definition of the term. ---
Jurisdictional Note
Requirements for a "credible witness" in will execution, notarization, and similar instruments vary by state and have changed significantly over time. Some jurisdictions historically disqualified interested parties from serving as credible witnesses; others treated interest as affecting credibility without barring testimony. Federal evidence law (FRE) addresses competency and credibility separately, while state evidence codes show more variation, particularly in their treatment of witness character impeachment. ---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Witness Competency and Credibility Law Mind Encyclopedia — Evidence and the Law of Proof Law Mind Encyclopedia — Will Execution Formalities (for "credible witness" in probate contexts) ---
Related Terms
Competency (witness) — the threshold qualification concept most commonly confused with credibility Impeachment — the procedural mechanism for attacking witness credibility Weight of evidence — the broader evaluative framework within which credibility operates Corroboration — evidence that strengthens credibility by independent confirmation Credible witness — the statutory sub-conceptparticularly in notarial and testamentary contexts Veracity — character for truthfulnessa component of credibility assessment Attestation — see for "credible witness" requirements in instrument execution
CREDIBLEcrossref
Black's Law Dictionary • 1891
Worthy of belief; entitled to credit. See COMPETENCY.
CREDIBLEmain
Anderson's Dictionary of Law • 1890
which has happened thereby; whereupon the jury will give damages in proportion to the injury sustained.1 Performance of a condition precedent (q. v.), if there is any such condition, must be averred.2 "Debt" will lie where the damages are liquidated. Under the plea of non est factum (he did cot make it), the defendant may show any fact contradicting the making of the instrument; as, personal incapacity, or that the deed was fraudulent, was not executed by all the parties, or was not delivered. In Pennsylvania the defendant may plead "covenants performed with leave, etc.," that is, with leave, after notice to the plaintiff, to offer in evidence anything that amounts to a lawful defense. "Covenants performed, absque hoc" (without this) admits the execution, but puts the plaintiff to proof of performance. "Covenants performed," although in substance a denial of the breach alleged, is an affirmative plea, and does not put the execution of the instrument in issue. "Absque hoc" puts in issue the performance on the part of the plaintiff as alleged by him. leave, etc.," implies an equitable defense, such as arises out of special circumstances, which the defendant intimates he means to offer in evidence.3 "With See CONDITION; CONTRACT; FACTUM, Non est; PosSIBILITY; PROVIDED; SEIZIN; WARRANTY, 1. 1. Worthy of belief; deserving of confidence. See CREDIT, 1. 2. Entitled to be heard as a witness: competent. Competent to give evidence,, and worthy of belief. The English statute as to the execution of wills prior to 1838 required witnesses to be "credible." This was held to mean such persons as were not disqualified from giving testimony by imbecility, interest, or crime.. This rule has been followed in Connecticut, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi, South Carolina, and several other States. As used in a statute requiring that a will disposing of realty shall be attested by credible witnesses, is equivalent to competent; not as meaning, in the loose popular sense, a person of good moral character and reputation in fact, and personally worthy of belief, but a person entitled to be examined in a court of justice, though subject to have his actual credit weighed and considered by the court or jury; and to be examined upon the question whether the will was duly executed, and by a person of disposing mind." Credibility. Being entitled to be believed; worthiness of belief. In deciding upon the credibility of a witness it is usual to inquire whether he is capable of knowing a 1 King v. Cook, 1 Leach, Cr. C. 123 (1774); 2 East, P. C. 616. 2 Carruth v. Grassie, 11 Gray, 211 (1858); Pomeroy v. Trimper, 8 Allen, 400 (1864). 3 Walker v. Chicago Tribune Co., 29 F. R. 827 (1887), Blodgett, J. 4 L. credere, to believe, trust; also, to lend. 1 Jarman, Wills, 124. • Fuller v. Fuller, 83 Ky. 350 (1885), cases. 7 [Haven v. Hilliard, 23 Pick. 18 (1839), Shaw, C. J.; Amory v. Fellows, 5 Mass. *228 (1809), Parsons, C. J.; Jones v. Larrabee, 47 Me. 476 (1860), Appleton, J.; 38 Md. 424; 26 Conn. 416; 18 Ga. 40; 58 N. H. 8; 14 Tex. Ap. 72.
CREDIBLEmain
Burrill's Law Dictionary • 1867
[Lat. credibilis, from credere, to believe, or trust.] In the law of evidence. To be believed; entitled to credit; worthy of belief. A term applied to a witness after his evidence is given. This term is never used as synonymous to competent. When applied to testimony, it presupposes the evidence given. Lord Mansfield, 1 Burr. 414, 417. 1 W. Bl. 98.
CREDIBLEa.
Websters Unabridged Dictionary (1913) • 1913
Capable of being credited or believed; worthy of belief; entiled to confidence; trustworthy. Things are made credible either by the known condition and quality of the utterer or by the manifest likelihood of truth in themselves. Hooker. A very diligent and observing person, and likewise very sober and credible. Dampier.
credibleadj
Wiktionary (English) • 2026
Wiktionary contributors • CC BY-SA 4.0 • via Kaikki
Extracted and formatted for display by Law Mind. Source link opens the current Wiktionary page and its contributor history; it is not a frozen copy of this extract.
Believable or plausible. | Dependable, trustworthy, or reliable. | Authentic or convincing.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

SubscribeEncyclopediaSign In
The Law Mind Legal Dictionary. This is a legal research library, not a lawyer.
Dictionary • Encyclopedia • Sign In