Definition
An adverb modifying legal standards and judicial findings to indicate that a violation, error, or departure from the law or evidence is not merely wrong but conspicuously, obviously, and offensively so. In legal usage, "flagrantly" intensifies a finding beyond simple error into the realm of manifest or palpable transgression.
The term most commonly appears in compound legal standards:
1. Flagrantly against the evidence: A finding by a court or jury that is so contrary to the weight of proof that the departure is plain and indefensible, not merely debatable. Distinguished from a verdict that is simply against the evidence by degree — flagrant departure implies the error is visible on the face of the record.
2. Flagrantly unconstitutional: A legal provision or governmental act so plainly in conflict with constitutional requirements that no reasonable argument sustains it.
3. Flagrantly improper/illegal: Conduct so openly in violation of law or professional standards that it cannot be attributed to honest mistake or judgment.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): In a flagrant manner.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): In a flagrant manner.
The common definitions are technically accurate but legally uninformative. In everyday English, "flagrantly" means openly and shamelessly. In legal usage, the word does more than characterize the actor's attitude — it functions as a threshold marker. When a court says a verdict was "flagrantly against the evidence," it is invoking a reviewable legal standard, not merely expressing disapproval. The word triggers specific appellate consequences that ordinary usage does not carry.
Common Confusion
"Flagrantly against the evidence" is not the same as "against the weight of the evidence" or "insufficient evidence," though all three can support a motion for new trial or appellate relief. The distinctions matter for research:
— Against the weight of the evidence: A broader, lower-threshold finding that the verdict does not align with the preponderance of proof.
— Flagrantly against the evidence: A higher, more demanding characterization requiring that the departure be palpable — obvious to any fair reviewer of the record.
— Insufficient evidence / no evidence: A different legal category altogether, challenging whether any competent evidence supports the verdict, not merely its weight.
Researchers who conflate these standards will misread the scope of a court's holding and misapply the precedent.
Why It Matters in Research
"Flagrantly" is not a term with a fixed statutory definition. Its meaning is context-dependent and standard-dependent, which creates several research traps.
First, the threshold problem. Because "flagrantly" appears in judicial opinions as an intensifier attached to other legal standards, its effective meaning shifts by jurisdiction and by the standard it modifies. What one court calls "flagrantly against the evidence" another may express as "shocks the conscience" or "manifestly against the weight of evidence." When searching historical corpus materials, researchers should collect the companion standard, not just the adverb, to ensure comparability across jurisdictions and time periods.
Second, the appellate posture problem. Courts use "flagrantly" both descriptively (characterizing what happened below) and prescriptively (stating the threshold required for relief). These are different legal moves. A court saying "the verdict was flagrantly against the evidence" is making a factual-legal finding; a court saying "relief is available only when the verdict is flagrantly against the evidence" is setting a standard of review. Corpus researchers must distinguish these uses.
Third, the historical drift problem. The intensity the word was meant to convey has been diluted in some jurisdictions by casual overuse in appellate briefs. Older opinions using "flagrantly" may have meant a genuinely extreme threshold. Subsequent cases citing those opinions sometimes use the word more loosely. Tracing the term through a jurisdiction's case law requires attention to whether the court is applying the original threshold or a softened version.
Fourth, cross-doctrinal appearances. "Flagrantly" appears not only in the sufficiency-of-evidence context but in Fourth Amendment suppression doctrine (flagrant police misconduct affecting the attenuation analysis), professional responsibility (flagrant ethical violations), and sentencing (flagrant disregard of court orders). These are distinct legal uses and should not be treated as interchangeable when building a research trail.
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's defines "flagrantly against the evidence" as equivalent to "palpably against the evidence," citing a Kentucky opinion. This is the core of the historical legal dictionary treatment — the term earns its entry not as a freestanding concept but as the operative adjective in a recognized evidentiary standard.
The Bouvier entry is narrow and practically oriented, which is both its strength and its limitation. It captures the most common legal deployment of the word but gives no guidance on its use in constitutional or criminal procedure contexts, which had not yet developed the doctrinal specificity they would later acquire. Researchers relying on Bouvier alone will have an accurate but incomplete picture — sufficient for 19th and early 20th century evidentiary questions, insufficient for modern constitutional applications.
No major historical law dictionary treats "flagrantly" as a standalone substantive term. Its legal life has always been adverbial — modifying other standards rather than defining its own doctrine.
Jurisdictional Note
The "flagrantly against the evidence" standard appears most frequently in Kentucky and other states that adopted similar formulations for new trial motions. Federal courts and other state jurisdictions often use "manifestly against the weight of the evidence" or "clearly erroneous" to cover equivalent ground. Researchers should not assume that absence of the word "flagrantly" means absence of the corresponding standard.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See: Standard of Review; Weight of the Evidence; New Trial Motions; Appellate Practice