Definition
A Law French phrase meaning "for good and evil." In medieval English criminal procedure, the formula by which an accused person formally submitted to trial by jury, signaling complete and unconditional acceptance of the jury's verdict. When a defendant put himself "de bien et de mal" upon a jury, he waived any further contest over the mode of trial and committed himself entirely to the judgment of the jurors — whatever that judgment might be.
The phrase is the Law French equivalent of the Latin "de bono et malo," both expressions functioning as terms of art in the pleading ritual surrounding jury trial in criminal cases. The submission was not merely procedural acknowledgment; it was a formal act of placing one's fate — for good or ill — in the hands of the jury.
Common Language
This is pure legal jargon drawn from Law French. The phrase has no meaningful existence in ordinary English, and the words' literal translation ("for good and evil") conveys little without the procedural context. No Wiktionary or Webster's entry applies. The section is omitted accordingly.
Common Confusion
DE BIEN ET DE MAL vs. DE BONO ET MALO: These are the same legal concept expressed in two different languages — Law French and Latin, respectively. Researchers should treat them as interchangeable terms for the same pleading formula. Historical sources use one or the other based on the period and the author's preferences; Burrill cross-references both explicitly. Neither is more authoritative than the other.
DE BIEN ET DE MAL vs. MISE SUR LE PAYS: Both phrases relate to a defendant's submission to jury trial, and they can appear in overlapping procedural contexts. "Mise sur le pays" (putting oneself on the country) is the broader act of demanding or consenting to jury trial. "De bien et de mal" is the specific formula of total submission to the verdict — the two are closely associated but not identical in emphasis. Researchers who find one phrase in a historical source should check for the other in the same document or period.
Why It Matters in Research
This term is encountered almost exclusively in sources dealing with medieval and early modern English criminal procedure. Its practical significance to Law Mind corpus researchers falls into three areas.
First, the phrase marks a specific procedural moment. When you encounter "de bien et de mal" in a plea roll, legal narrative, or early treatise, it signals that you are reading about the formal acceptance of jury trial — not a preliminary motion, not a challenge to the array, but the terminal act of submission. This helps date and categorize documents within the procedural sequence.
Second, Law French creates indexing and search traps. Early English legal records and Year Books used Law French inconsistently; the same formula may appear as "de bien et de mal," "de bono et malo," or in anglicized or abbreviated forms. A corpus search on one string will not reliably capture all instances. Researchers should run parallel searches on both the French and Latin forms and should not assume a clean one-to-one correspondence between phrase variants and the sources that use them.
Third, the historical dictionaries offer limited depth here. Black's (both editions) and Burrill provide the core meaning in nearly identical language. Bouvier redirects without substance. Rapalje & Lawrence cross-references a related Latin term without explaining the concept. The most useful secondary source among the shelf dictionaries is Burrill, which supplies a statutory citation (Stat. Glocest. c. 9) and a reference to Reeves' History of English Law — both genuine starting points for deeper research into the procedural history of jury submission in medieval England.
Historical Dictionary Support
The shelf sources converge on a single, brief definition: this is the formula of total submission to the jury's verdict in ancient criminal proceedings. Black's Law Dictionary (1st and 2nd editions) offer word-for-word identical entries, suggesting neither edition added new research. Burrill is the most substantive of the group, confirming the statutory grounding in the Statute of Gloucester (c. 9) and pointing to Reeves' History of English Law, vol. 2, p. 153 — a work that treats the development of jury trial in detail and remains a legitimate historical source.
Bouvier's entry is a redirect to "DE" without independent content, which is unhelpful. Rapalje & Lawrence cross-references "BONO ET INFRA SACROS" rather than "BONO ET MALO," which is an unusual routing that may reflect the editors' organizational choices rather than any doctrinal distinction. Neither Bouvier nor Rapalje & Lawrence adds information that Burrill and Black's do not cover.
What the historical dictionaries collectively miss: none explains the procedural mechanics of what "putting oneself upon a jury" actually required, nor do they situate the phrase within the longer history of trial by ordeal being replaced by jury trial — the context that gives the formula its significance. For that, researchers need to move beyond the dictionaries to Reeves or to histories of the common law.
Jurisdictional Note
This phrase belongs to the history of English common law and has no operative significance in American, Canadian, or other common law jurisdictions today. It will appear only in historical materials, Year Books, and scholarly treatments of medieval criminal procedure. No modern jurisdiction employs the formula.