Also known as: triers of fact · trier-of-fact · finder of fact · fact finder · fact-finder
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The person or group responsible for determining the facts in a legal proceeding. This role belongs to a jury when one is empaneled or to a judge in a bench trial. The trier of fact weighs evidence, assesses credibility, and resolves disputed issues of fact.
Tessa Takahashi sued Titan Industries after a workplace accident. An engineer offered testimony about the machine's design tolerances. The testimony supplied specialized knowledge that allowed the jury to understand the mechanical evidence and decide whether the design was defective.
Tobias Thomas faced theft charges in a non-jury trial. After hearing all the evidence the judge found the prosecution had not proved every element. The judge's not-guilty finding constituted an acquittal that barred a second prosecution on the same facts.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Tiana Tan prevailed on a fraud claim against Terra Financial. The jury reviewed the defendant's deliberate misrepresentations, the extent of the plaintiff's losses, and the company's substantial net worth before setting the punitive award.
Theo Thomas stood trial for embezzlement. A psychiatrist attempted to testify that the defendant lacked the intent to defraud. The court excluded the opinion because the question of mens rea belonged exclusively to the jury.
Tiffany Torres's family sought to discontinue life support. The court examined written statements and prior conversations to decide whether clear and convincing evidence showed the patient's wishes. The judge's factual determination controlled the outcome.
Tori Taylor faced juvenile delinquency charges. The court instructed the fact finder that the prosecution must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. The instruction shaped how the judge evaluated the evidence before reaching a verdict.
In a bench trial the judge alone serves as the trier of fact. The judge must assess witness credibility, weigh conflicting evidence, and resolve all factual disputes before applying the law.
The trier of fact decides only factual issues. The judge decides questions of law such as the admissibility of evidence, the elements of a claim, and the proper legal standard to apply.
An expert may not state an opinion on an ultimate issue that the trier of fact must decide, such as whether a criminal defendant possessed the required mental state. Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) expressly reserves that determination for the trier of fact alone.
The trier of fact must be convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard impresses upon the fact finder the necessity of reaching a subjective state of certitude before convicting the defendant.
Interpretation of an integrated written agreement is normally a question of law for the court. When interpretation depends on the credibility of extrinsic evidence or a choice among reasonable inferences, the issue becomes one for the trier of fact.
…"preponderance of the evidence" and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" are quantitatively imprecise, they do communicate to the finder of fact different notions concerning the degree of confidence he is expected to have in the correctness of his factual conclusions. A second proposition, which is really nothing more than a…