Definition
In criminal procedure, a defendant is said to **stand mute** when, upon being arraigned for a criminal offense, the defendant refuses to enter a plea. This occurs when the defendant either (1) makes no answer at all, (2) gives an answer that is irrelevant or legally inadmissible, or (3) having entered a plea of not guilty, refuses to submit to trial by jury.
Standing mute is a recognized procedural event that triggers specific judicial responses — most significantly, an inquiry into whether the silence is willful or the product of a disability.
---
Common Language
**Modern common usage (Wiktionary):** Of a bird: to defecate.
**Historical common usage (Webster's 1913):** To cast off; to molt — used in the context of birds shedding feathers.
The ordinary English senses of "mute" — silent, speechless, or (in the avian sense) to defecate — have no meaningful overlap with the legal doctrine of standing mute. The legal term is a term of art describing a specific procedural posture at arraignment, not merely a description of a defendant who happens to be quiet. A researcher encountering "mute" in legal sources should not read it as a casual synonym for silence.
---
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
Historical procedure distinguished two categories when a defendant stood mute, each with different legal consequences:
**Mute by malice** (also: mute of malice): The defendant is found to be willfully and obstinately refusing to plead. Under early English practice, this triggered peine forte et dure — pressing with weights until the defendant either pleaded or died — a practice later abolished. In modern procedure, a willful refusal to plead is typically treated as a plea of not guilty entered by the court.
**Mute by visitation of God**: The defendant is found unable to speak or comprehend the proceedings due to physical incapacity — historically, deafness or muteness; in modern terms, encompassing mental incompetency or incapacity to stand trial. This finding redirects the proceeding toward a competency determination rather than a criminal trial.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The doctrine of standing mute is primarily historical in its procedural specificity but remains relevant for several research reasons.
**The malice/visitation-of-God distinction is the key analytical fork.** Historical sources treat this as a threshold jury question — a separate jury would be empaneled to determine the cause of the defendant's silence before the criminal trial could proceed. Researchers reading historical trial records who encounter the phrase "sworn to try whether the prisoner stands mute" are seeing this preliminary jury process, not the criminal trial itself.
**Modern competency doctrine is the functional successor.** What historical law called "mute by visitation of God" has been absorbed into the modern framework of competency to stand trial. Researchers connecting historical and modern criminal procedure must recognize this translation: the vocabulary changed entirely, but the underlying concern — whether the defendant can meaningfully participate in the proceeding — is continuous.
**Peine forte et dure is the most significant abolished practice tied to this term.** Historical sources referencing consequences for standing mute of malice will describe this punishment. It was abolished in England in 1772. American jurisdictions never adopted it with any uniformity; colonial and early American courts moved quickly toward treating silence as a not-guilty plea. Researchers should be alert to whether a historical source is describing English or American practice.
**Anderson's Dictionary entry in the source material is a mismatch.** The Anderson's entry provided under this term is actually a definition of murder — an error in the source data that underscores the importance of cross-checking historical dictionaries against one another rather than relying on any single source.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's (both editions) and Burrill agree nearly verbatim, all tracing to Blackstone's Commentaries (4 Bl. Comm. 324) as the foundational authority. This convergence reflects that "stand mute" was a fixed common-law concept with settled definition by the time these dictionaries were compiled; there is no meaningful divergence among them on the core definition.
Rapalje & Lawrence adds the most procedurally useful detail, making explicit that a separate jury must be sworn to determine the cause of the silence — a procedural step that Black's and Burrill imply but do not fully explain. Researchers using Black's alone may miss this preliminary jury mechanism entirely.
Burrill traces the term etymologically to the Latin *mutus*, which is accurate and contextually useful in distinguishing the legal term of art from the avian sense of "mute" that appears in early English sources.
The Anderson's entry attributed to this term in the source material defines murder, not mute — an apparent cataloging error. It carries no weight in interpreting this term and is noted here only to flag the discrepancy.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The formal procedure for addressing a defendant who stands mute — including the preliminary jury and the malice/visitation-of-God distinction — is primarily English common law. American jurisdictions largely absorbed the doctrine informally, with most courts and later statutes directing that a defendant's failure to plead be treated as a not-guilty plea. Modern competency-to-stand-trial statutes govern the incapacity scenario in all U.S. jurisdictions, though the specific procedures vary by state.
---