Who Decides: Fact To Law Application?

The US judicial system is often informationally disabled, meaning that judges and juries may lack important facts when making complex legal decisions. In the US, questions of law are for the judge to decide, while questions of fact are for the jury. Judges act as referees, ruling on issues of law and interpreting the rules and laws, and applying them to each individual situation. Juries, on the other hand, decide the verdict by deciding the facts of the case. However, the distinction between the two is not always clear-cut, and certain legal issues can still be addressed by the jury.

Judges rule on issues of law, such as the admissibility of evidence

In a courtroom, the judge acts as a referee, ruling on issues of law before and during the trial. This includes interpreting the rules and laws and applying them to each individual situation. For example, during the pretrial phase, the defence attorney may ask the judge to suppress evidence that was collected without a valid search warrant. The judge will also define for the jury the standards of negligence in a personal injury case. During a criminal sentencing, the judge will apply the sentencing guidelines to determine the appropriate punishment.

In federal court, the jury decides the verdict. The jury is made up of ordinary, average citizens who are tasked with making decisions about facts. The jury does not have the authority to decide legal issues, such as whether a search warrant was supported by probable cause or whether a breath or blood test is admissible. These are issues for a judge to decide prior to trial. However, in deciding these legal issues, judges often must make findings of fact, as most issues are a combination of law and facts.

In a criminal case, a typical question of law might be whether the prosecutor has proved a person is intoxicated because the officer testifies that they failed one or more field sobriety tests, had slurred speech or bloodshot eyes. In a self-defence case where a murder has occurred, a question of fact might be whether the accused had an honest and reasonable belief that there was an imminent risk of death, serious bodily injury or sexual assault.

In a criminal case involving chemical evidence, like a breath test in a drunk driving case, or ballistics evidence in a murder case, this evidence can be suppressed by the judge if an interpretation of existing law suggests that the evidence should not be admitted at trial. The validity of an arrest, the admissibility of a confession, and the admissibility of evidence are all legal questions that are traditionally resolved by a judge.

Juries decide questions of fact, like whether the accused had an honest and reasonable belief that there was an imminent risk of death

In a self-defence case where a murder has occurred, a question of fact for the jury to decide might be whether the accused held an honest and reasonable belief that there was an imminent risk of death, serious bodily injury, or sexual assault. In such cases, the jury is said to be "judges of the facts".

In a jury trial, jurors must decide what the facts of the case are. This involves thinking about all the evidence and deciding what each piece of evidence means and how important it is. This includes whether they believe what each of the witnesses said. What the jury decides about any fact in the case is final.

However, it is important to note that the role of the jury in deciding questions of fact is not always clear-cut. In deciding legal issues, judges often must make findings of fact, as most issues are a combination of law and facts. For example, in a drunk driving case, a judge may decide that a legal issue "goes to weight rather than admissibility", meaning that it is up to the jury to decide what weight to give to certain evidence, such as the results of a breath test.

Additionally, there are rare occasions where a special verdict may be sought, in which the jury provides detailed factual findings and the court applies the law to those findings. However, this approach is generally considered to be complicated and is no longer common.

Judges act as referees, ruling on issues of law before and during the trial

In a courtroom, the judge acts as a referee, ruling on issues of law before and during the trial. The judge interprets the rules and laws and applies them to each individual situation. For example, during the pretrial phase, the defence attorney may ask the judge to suppress evidence that was collected without a valid search warrant. It is also the judge's responsibility to define standards of negligence in a personal injury case when giving instructions to the jury before they deliberate.

In federal court, the jury decides the verdict. The jury is made up of ordinary, average citizens who are finders of fact. They decide what the facts of the case are and what each piece of evidence means and how important it is. This includes whether they believe what each of the witnesses said.

In a criminal case, a question of fact might be "was a search warrant supported by probable cause?" or "is the breath or blood test admissible?". These are issues for a judge to decide prior to the trial. A jury does not have the authority or power to decide these legal issues and therefore cannot, for example, dismiss a case because the police unlawfully stopped or arrested someone.

However, in deciding these legal issues, judges often must make findings of fact, and this is because most issues are a combination of law and facts. So, certain legal issues, even once decided by a judge, can still be addressed with the jury. For example, if prior to trial, your lawyer argues that the breath test should be suppressed because the police didn't observe you continuously for 15 minutes prior to the breath test, and the judge denies the motion, the judge is saying that your legal issue "goes to weight rather than admissibility". This means the judge has found that the breath test is admissible, but it's up to the jury to decide what weight to give the test.

Judges interpret the rules and laws and apply them to each individual situation

In a common law jurisdiction, several stages of research and analysis are required to determine "what the law is" in a given situation. First, one must ascertain the facts. Then, one must locate any relevant statutes and cases. Then one must extract the principles, analogies and statements by various courts of what they consider important to determine how the next court is likely to rule on the facts of the present case.

The common law is more malleable than statutory law. Judges can reinterpret and revise the law without legislative intervention to adapt to new trends in political, legal and social philosophy. This evolution of the common law is in the hands of judges, and they have "made law" for hundreds of years.

The reasons given for a decision are often more important in the long run than the outcome in a particular case. Judicial opinions are usually quite long, and give rationales and policies that can be balanced with judgment in future cases, rather than the bright-line rules usually embodied in statutes.

The jury system is not an American invention

The concept of a jury trial was further developed in England, where it was guaranteed to citizens by the Magna Carta in 1215 and later by the English Bill of Rights in 1689. The colonists brought this idea with them to the New World, and the right to a trial by jury was included in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The specific details of jury selection and operation have evolved over time, with various laws and court decisions shaping the process. For example, Massachusetts was the first state to impanel African-Americans on a jury in 1860, but it lagged behind in giving women the right to serve on juries, only doing so in 1950.

Today, jury trials are considered a fundamental part of the American judicial system, with the United States holding 80% of all jury trials worldwide. They are seen as an important way to involve ordinary citizens in the judicial process and ensure that decisions are made by a group of peers from the community.

Frequently asked questions