Also known as:fact trier · fact triers · trier of fact
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A person or body that hears testimony and reviews evidence to decide factual issues in a legal proceeding.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
6
Expert Testimony on Product Defect
Faye Fuller sued Ferrum Metals after a machine part failed and caused injury. An engineer offered testimony on the manufacturing process and material stress. The court admitted the testimony because it would help the fact-trier understand the technical evidence and decide whether the part was defective.
Double Jeopardy After Acquittal
Fiona Foster was tried for theft. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the charged offense. Under the double-jeopardy rule, that finding by the fact-trier barred a later prosecution for the same conduct even though the state later discovered additional evidence.
Frostline Textiles was found liable for deliberately dumping toxic waste near Floyd Franklin's property. The fact-trier considered the company's reckless conduct, the extent of the environmental harm, and the defendant's wealth when deciding the amount of punitive damages to award.
Expert Opinion on Mental State
Francois Fortier was charged with premeditated murder. A psychiatrist sought to testify that the defendant lacked the capacity to form intent. The court excluded that portion of the testimony because the question whether the defendant possessed the required mental state is reserved exclusively for the fact-trier.
Sufficiency of Evidence Review
Freya Freeman was convicted of arson after a bench trial. On appeal she argued that no rational fact-trier could have found the elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The reviewing court examined the record to determine whether the fact-trier's findings satisfied the constitutional sufficiency standard.
In re Winship397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1073, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970)
During a 1967 adjudicatory hearing conducted pursuant to section 742 of the New York Family Court Act, a judge in New York Family Court found that the twelve-year-old appellant had entered a locker and stolen one hundred twelve dollars from a woman's pocketbook. The petition which charged appellant with delinquency alleged that his act, if done by an adult, would constitute the crime or crimes of larceny. The judge acknowledged that the proof might not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but relied on section 744(b) of the New York Family Court Act, which provides that any determination at the conclusion of an adjudicatory hearing that a juvenile did an act or acts must be based on a preponderance of the evidence.
After a subsequent dispositional hearing, appellant was ordered placed in a training school for an initial period of eighteen months, subject to annual extensions of his commitment until his eighteenth birthday, six years in appellant's case. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Judicial Department, affirmed without opinion. The New York Court of Appeals then affirmed by a four-to-three vote, expressly sustaining the constitutionality of section 744(b). The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.
Falcon Dynamics was prosecuted after statements made by an unavailable witness were introduced at trial. The fact-trier heard the out-of-court statements without the opportunity for cross-examination. The court held that the fact-trier could not rely on the statements because the confrontation right had been violated.
Crawford v. Washington541 U.S. 36 (2004)
On August 5, 1999, Michael Crawford stabbed Kenneth Lee in the torso during a confrontation at Lee's apartment.
Crawford and his wife Sylvia had gone there after Sylvia alleged that Lee had attempted to rape her several weeks earlier. Lee was taken to the hospital and later died from his wounds. Police arrested both Crawford and Sylvia that night.
Detectives gave Miranda warnings and interrogated Sylvia twice at the station house. In her recorded statement Sylvia initially denied involvement but eventually admitted she had led Crawford to Lee's apartment and had seen the stabbing. Crawford also gave police a statement describing the events and his belief that Lee may have reached for something before the stabbing. At trial Crawford asserted self-defense, but Sylvia did not testify because of Washington's marital privilege.
The State offered Sylvia's tape-recorded statement as evidence that the stabbing was not in self-defense and invoked the hearsay exception for statements against penal interest. The trial court admitted the statement after finding it bore particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. The jury convicted Crawford of assault. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed after applying a nine-factor test and concluding the statement lacked sufficient indicia of reliability.
The Washington Supreme Court reinstated the conviction. It determined that Sylvia's statement interlocked with Crawford's statement and therefore bore adequate guarantees of trustworthiness, noting that both accounts were ambiguous on whether Lee had possessed a weapon. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Who qualifies as the fact-trier in a jury trial versus a bench trial?
In a jury trial the jurors serve as the fact-trier. In a bench trial the judge acts as the fact-trier and decides both factual and legal issues.
Why does Rule 702 require that expert testimony help the fact-trier?
Rule 702 permits expert testimony only when the specialized knowledge will assist the fact-trier in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue. The rule prevents unnecessary expert opinions that do not add value to the fact-trier's decision-making process.
What role does the fact-trier play in assessing punitive damages under the Restatement?
The fact-trier evaluates the outrageousness of the defendant's conduct, the harm caused or intended, and the defendant's wealth when deciding whether and how much punitive damages to award.
Why does Rule 704(b) reserve mental-state questions for the fact-trier alone?
Rule 704(b) prohibits an expert from stating an opinion on whether the defendant possessed a mental state that is an element of the crime or defense. Those ultimate factual determinations belong exclusively to the fact-trier.
How does the fact-trier's acquittal affect double-jeopardy analysis under the Model Penal Code?
An acquittal occurs when the fact-trier returns a not-guilty verdict or finds insufficient evidence to convict. That determination bars a subsequent prosecution for the same offense under Model Penal Code section 1.08(1).
397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970)
…. convincing the factfinder of his guilt." To this end, the reasonable-doubt standard is indispensable, for it "impresses on the trier of fact the necessity of reaching a subjective state of certitude of the facts in issue." Dorsen & Rezneck, In Re Gault and the Future of Juvenile Law, 1 Family Law Quarterly, No. 4, pp. 1, 26…
Constitutional LawIndividual rights · Procedural due process, including the constitutional right to process in administrative hearingsNEXTGENIntermediate