was not implicated

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "was not implicated" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to indicate that someone or something was not involved or connected to a particular situation or event, often in a legal or investigative context. Example: "After the investigation, it was concluded that she was not implicated in the wrongdoing."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Science

Academia

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

57 human-written examples

(Auburn was not implicated).

The New York Times - Sports

Trump was not implicated.

The Washington Post

Mr. Stewart was not implicated.

The New York Times

The ambassador was not implicated.

The New York Times

The Vice fund was not implicated.

The New York Times

He was not implicated in the inquiry.

The New York Times

Police said he was not implicated in the shooting.

The Times

He was not implicated in the scandal itself.

The New York Times

Psychological well-being was not implicated in the associations tested.

Landscape and Urban Planning

(Mr. Mahaney was not implicated in that case).

The New York Times

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

1 human-written examples

Officer Chandler, who was not implicated in that case, remained on the force.

The New York Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "was not implicated", ensure the context clearly states the event or situation from which the subject is being cleared. This avoids ambiguity and strengthens the statement's impact.

Common error

Avoid using "was not implicated" when simply stating someone wasn't generally involved. "Implicated" carries a connotation of suspicion or wrongdoing. Use "was not involved" in neutral contexts.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "was not implicated" functions as a declarative statement to indicate that a person or entity was not involved in a particular situation, especially one involving wrongdoing or suspicion. Ludwig's examples show it often appears in legal or investigative contexts.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

86%

Science

7%

Academia

4%

Less common in

Encyclopedias

1%

Wiki

1%

Formal & Business

1%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "was not implicated" is a common and grammatically correct expression used to indicate the lack of involvement of a person or entity in a particular situation, especially one involving wrongdoing or suspicion. Ludwig AI highlights its frequent usage in news and media, as well as its presence in scientific and academic contexts. It's important to use this phrase accurately, ensuring the context aligns with a situation where someone is being cleared of potential wrongdoing, rather than merely stating a lack of involvement. Alternatives include "was not involved" or "was not connected", offering less formal options when the connotation of wrongdoing isn't present.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

was not involved

This alternative suggests a general lack of participation or connection.

was not connected

This option highlights a lack of association or link to the subject.

was not associated

This phrase emphasizes the absence of a relationship or affiliation.

was not linked

This alternative indicates a lack of a direct connection or tie.

was not tied

Suggests absence of binding or connection to someone or something.

was not incriminated

This option directly implies a lack of evidence or suspicion of guilt.

was not culpable

This highlights a lack of responsibility or blame.

was not found guilty

This implies that one was trialed but absolved of the crime

was exonerated

Signifies being cleared of accusations or blame.

was cleared of charges

This suggests a formal removal of accusations or allegations.

FAQs

How can I use "was not implicated" in a sentence?

Use "was not implicated" to indicate that someone or something was not involved in a negative or suspicious event. For example: "The investigation concluded that the CEO "was not implicated" in the financial scandal."

What's a less formal alternative to "was not implicated"?

If you need a less formal phrase, consider using "was not involved" or "was not connected". These alternatives lack the implication of wrongdoing inherent in "was not implicated".

What's the difference between "was not implicated" and "was not accused"?

"Was not accused" simply means that someone wasn't formally charged. "Was not implicated" means that after an investigation, there was no evidence to suggest their involvement, regardless of whether they were initially suspected.

When is it appropriate to use "was not implicated"?

It is appropriate to use "was not implicated" after an investigation or inquiry to formally state that a person or entity had no part in the wrongdoing being investigated. This phrase is common in news reports and legal contexts.