All questions of fact can be proven or refuted by reference to a particular standard of proof. Depending on the nature of the case, the standard of proof may require that a fact be true as “more likely than not” (there is little more evidence for the fact than against, as established by a balance of probabilities) or beyond a reasonable doubt. Because it is not always easy to understand the limits or extent of a jury`s power in a criminal case, it is important that you discuss all the legal and factual issues that may exist in your case, the strengths and weaknesses of these issues, and how these issues may play out in a jury trial. Armed with this information, you will be able to make an informed judicial or non-judicial decision. One of the reasons this statement is incomplete is that it ignores the issue of jury annulment, where judges are considered “judges of the law.” However, this is a complicated and controversial topic that would be beyond the scope of this article. For more information on jury cancellation, see; What is jury annulment and is it legal in Michigan? Legal issues relate to elements such as the law to be applied to a particular case or controversy, how to apply the law in a case, relevant and/or admissible evidence, and instructions to be given to a jury. In criminal proceedings involving chemical evidence, such as a breathalyzer test in a drunk driving case, or ballistics evidence is a murder case, that evidence may be suppressed by the judge if an interpretation of the existing law suggests that the evidence should not be admitted at trial. The validity of an arrest and the admissibility of a confession, the admissibility of evidence, these are all legal issues. Traditionally, legal issues can only be decided by a judge.

(2) In some jurisdictions, a question relating to the determination and/or interpretation of foreign law in a case. A party who wishes to invoke a foreign right must prove it like any other fact that has not been noticed in court. In some jurisdictions, a question of fact relating to the determination and/or interpretation of foreign law is resolved by a jury or, in court proceedings, by a judge. While the categories can get a little murky, deciding whether something is a question of law or fact can play an important role in whether a matter goes to court or is summarily judgmentd. If no question of fact is contested and the case clearly contains only one point of law, a judge may decide to decide summarily instead of ordering the proceedings. For example, if a person charged with speeding receives a ticket, but they and the issuing officer agree that they have driven too fast on their own property, it may be considered a question of law whether or not a speeding law applies to their personal property. Depending on the applicable Highway Traffic Act, the judge could summarily assess the issue by saying whether the Speed Act applies in this case or not. The distinction between “law” and “fact” has proven blurred wherever it is used. For example, the common law required that a plaintiff`s claim in a civil suit set out only the “facts” of his or her case, not the “legal findings.” Unfortunately, no one has ever been able to say whether the statement that “the defendant on 9. The plaintiff negligently ran over the plaintiff with his car at the intersection of State Street and Chestnut Street,” is a finding of fact or a legal finding. In fact, the distinction between law and fact is only the legal version of the philosophical distinction between “empirical” and “analytical” statements, a distinction on which philosophers still cannot agree. (4) It is my duty to instruct you on the law.

You must take the law as I give it to you. If a lawyer says otherwise about the law, follow what I say. On several occasions, I have already given you some instructions on the law. You must consider all My instructions together as the law to follow. You should ignore some instructions and ignore others. While questions of fact are decided by a trier of fact, who is often a jury in the common law system, legal issues are always decided by a judge or equivalent judge. While findings of fact in a common law legal system are rarely overturned by an appellate court, legal findings are easier to review. Cases involving a question of fact are generally difficult to challenge. Since the judge has access to all the evidence in a substantive trial, appellate courts generally assume that he or she was able to make a clear decision as to whether something was a fact or not.

On the other hand, when dealing with legal issues, appellate courts are more willing to hear an appeal alleging that the original judge or jury did not interpret or apply the law correctly. See, for example, Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996) (on questions of fact generally) and Griffin v. Mark Travel Corp., 724 N.W.2d 900 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006) (concerning foreign law). (7) When you review the evidence and reach a verdict, you can give the test the weight you think it deserves. The results of a test are just one factor you can consider, as well as any other evidence about the defendant`s condition at the time they drove the motor vehicle. In several civil courts, the highest courts consider questions of fact to be decided by the lower courts and deal only with questions of law. They can therefore refer a case to a lower court to reapply the law and respond to fact-based assessments based on their response to the application of the law.

International courts such as the Benelux Court of Justice and the European Court of Justice respond to legal questions raised by judges of national courts only if they are uncertain about the interpretation of the law of multilateral organisations. It would be foolish to say that it has no interest in knowing that The Disciples is a fake. But for the man who has never heard of Vermeer or van Meegeren and stands before the disciples and admires him, it can make no difference whether he is told that it is a seventeenth-century Vermeer or a twentieth-century van Meegeren in the Vermeer style. And when some deny this, vehemently arguing that it actually makes a big difference, they only admit that they know something about Vermeer and van Meegeren and art history and the value and prestige of certain masters. They only admit that they do not judge a work of art for purely aesthetic reasons, but also take into account when it was created, by whom and how great its reputation or creator is. [4] This raises the factual question of the relationship between A and B and the type of work they have. Realistic definition: According to this, laws are what the courts actually decide.