Definition
A crime designated by law or judicial interpretation as sufficiently serious or morally degrading to trigger special legal consequences for the person convicted. The term carries two distinct but overlapping meanings in legal usage:
1. At common law: A crime whose conviction rendered the offender incompetent to testify as a witness. The theory was that a person depraved enough to commit such an offense was unworthy of credit in a court of law. Crimes in this category included treason, felony, and the various species of crimen falsi — perjury, forgery, and similar offenses involving falsehood and fraud.
2. In constitutional law: A crime serious enough to require presentment or indictment by a grand jury under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides that "no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury." In this context, the classification turns on the nature of the potential punishment rather than the moral character of the act. Crimes punishable by imprisonment in a penitentiary — as distinguished from a jail — have been held infamous in this sense. The character of the offense, not merely its label, controls.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "Infamous" means well known for some bad quality or deed; having a reputation of the worst kind.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "Having a reputation of the worst kind; notoriously vile; base; detestable; as, an infamous liar. Branded with infamy by conviction of a particular crime."
The legal term tracks the ordinary meaning more closely than most legal terms of art, but the specific legal consequences — loss of testimonial competence at common law, grand jury requirement under the Fifth Amendment — are not captured by the common definition. A researcher who encounters "infamous crime" in a legal source must ask which legal consequence the author has in mind, not simply whether the crime was morally notorious.
Common Confusion
Two distinct doctrines have historically traveled under this label, and they do not always point to the same crimes. The common-law rule (witness disqualification) focused on the nature of the act — particularly whether it involved fraud or falsehood, or was a felony. The constitutional rule (grand jury requirement) has been interpreted to focus on the severity of potential punishment — specifically, whether the offense is punishable by confinement in a penitentiary. A crime involving moral turpitude might be infamous in the common-law sense without triggering the Fifth Amendment guarantee, and vice versa. Researchers reading pre-twentieth-century materials must determine which framework the author is applying.
Why It Matters in Research
The term is a moving target across time, jurisdiction, and legal context, and conflating its usages will produce research errors.
At common law, the witness-disqualification doctrine gave "infamous crime" operational content in evidence law. Many nineteenth-century American treatises and statutes use the term in this sense. That doctrine was abolished or modified by statute across most jurisdictions during the nineteenth century — England abolished it by 6 & 7 Vict. c. 85 — and the term lost its evidentiary function. Researchers encountering "infamous crime" in pre-reform evidence materials should understand they are reading a defunct doctrine, not current law.
In constitutional research, the Fifth Amendment use of the term remains live but has been interpreted through a punishment-based lens. The leading interpretive question — what makes a crime "otherwise infamous" for grand jury purposes — was addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417 (1885), which tied infamy to penitentiary punishment. Later decisions refined this. Researchers working on grand jury requirements, indictment practice, or the scope of the Fifth Amendment must follow this line of constitutional interpretation rather than relying on the common-law evidentiary definition.
Jurisdictional variation in state constitutions adds another layer. Many state constitutions contain grand jury provisions using similar language, but state courts have not uniformly adopted the federal interpretive framework. The term "infamous" in a state constitutional provision may be read against the state's own common-law background.
The New York Revised Statutes defined "infamous crimes" by enumeration — a legislative approach that diverges from both the common-law test and the federal constitutional test. Researchers using New York materials from the nineteenth century should look for the statutory definition rather than assuming a common-law or federal meaning applies.
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical dictionaries converge on the core common-law definition — a crime rendering the convicted person incompetent as a witness — but diverge significantly in emphasis and scope.
Burrill's is the most precise on the common-law doctrine. He identifies the specific crimes (treason, praemunire, felony, crimen falsi) and correctly notes the English statutory abolition. His entry is useful as a baseline for understanding how the term operated in evidence law before reform.
Black's (1st Ed.) spans both the common-law and constitutional meanings and is the most useful for understanding the transition between them. The entry acknowledges that "infamous" as used in the Fifth Amendment has been construed narrowly — to encompass crimen falsi involving falsehood — while also recognizing the broader punishment-based interpretation. The tension between these readings is not fully resolved in the entry, which reflects genuine doctrinal instability at the time of publication.
Bouvier's leads with the constitutional provision and is most useful for researchers focused on grand jury and indictment questions. He notes the state constitutional variations without attempting to resolve them.
None of the historical dictionaries fully anticipates the modern federal framework tying infamy to penitentiary punishment. Researchers relying solely on these sources for Fifth Amendment analysis will need to supplement with twentieth-century constitutional sources.
Jurisdictional Note
The Fifth Amendment grand jury requirement has not been incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, meaning states are not constitutionally required to use grand juries for infamous crimes as defined by federal doctrine. State constitutional provisions vary in language and interpretation. The term "infamous crime" in a state context may be defined by statute, state case law, or local common-law tradition rather than the federal constitutional gloss.