Editing Trier of fact

{{short description|In a legal proceeding, those who decide if an event occurred based on evidence}}
{{globalize|date=December 2010}}
{{About|a determiner of facts available in a trial|a type of UK court hearing|trial of the facts|the interpretation of the law itself|Question of law}}

In [[law]], a '''trier of fact''' or '''finder of fact''' is a person or group who determines disputed issues of [[fact]] in a [[legal proceeding]] (usually a [[trial]]) and how [[Relevance (law)|relevant]] they are to deciding its outcome.<ref>Schultz, Norman. [http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/fact-finding/ Fact-Finding]. Accessed 17 November 2008</ref> To determine a fact is to decide, from the [[Evidence (law)|evidence]] presented, whether something existed or some event occurred.<ref>W A Wilson, 'A Note on Fact and Law' (1963) 26 ''MLR'' 609, at p 613.</ref>

The factfinder differs by the type of proceeding. In a jury trial, it is the [[jury]]; in a non-jury trial, the [[judge]] is both the factfinder and the [[trier of law]]. In administrative proceedings, the factfinder may be a [[Hearing (law)|hearing]] officer or a hearing body.<ref name="about">[http://www.answers.com/topic/fact-finding Law Dictionary: Fact-Finder]. Accessed 17 November 2008.</ref>

==Juries==
{{main|Jury}}
{{Unreferenced section|date=June 2021}}

In a jury trial, a [[jury]] is the trier of fact. The jury finds the facts and applies them to the relevant [[statute]] or [[common law|law]] it is instructed by the judge to use to reach its [[verdict]]. Thus, in a jury trial, the jury makes the findings of fact while the [[judge]] makes legal rulings as to what evidence will be heard by the jury and what legal framework governs the case. Jurors are instructed to follow the law as given by the judge strictly but are in no way obligated to do so. This sometimes leads to [[jury nullification]], where the jury's verdict differs from the law.

In Anglo-American–based legal systems, a finding of fact made by the jury is not appealable unless clearly wrong to any reasonable person. This principle is enshrined in the [[Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution]], which provides that "no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law".<ref name="Government Printing Office - SEVENTH AMENDMENT">[https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-10-8.pdf Government Printing Office - SEVENTH AMENDMENT]Accessed 30 May 2024</ref>

==Judges==
{{further|Bench trial}}

In a bench trial, judges are professional triers of fact. In a bench trial, the judge makes findings of fact and rulings of law.<ref>W A Wilson, 'A Note on Fact and Law' (1963) 26 ''MLR'' 609 – For discussion of affirmation of propositions to establish a legal conclusion – '''"Truth-questions"''', "Description- / Linguistic-questions", and "Probability-questions"</ref> The findings of a judge of first instance are not normally disturbed by an [[appellate court]].<ref>Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, ''Clarke v. Edinburgh and District Tramways Co''., 1919 S.C.(H.L.) 35, at p 36.</ref>

==Administrative law judges==
In the U.S., an [[administrative law judge]] (ALJ) both presides over trials (and makes rulings of law) and adjudicates the claims or disputes (in other words, ALJ-controlled proceedings are [[bench trial]]s) involving [[administrative law]], but ALJs are not part of an [[separation of powers|independent]] [[judiciary]].

==Mixed systems==
{{main|Lay judge}}

In mixed systems, such as the [[judiciary of Germany]], a mixture of both judges and lay judges are triers of fact.

==See also==
* [[Conclusions of law]]
*[[Frye standard]]

==Notes and references==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Trier Of Fact In Anglo-American Based Legal Systems}}
[[Category:Legal procedure]]