What Is a Legal Question in a Case

A question of law arises when the rule of law is challenged and is decided by a judge rather than a jury. The jury`s task is to decide questions of fact, not law. Legal matters are sometimes referred to a state`s attorney general for deliberation. To this day, I will never forget the first question she always asked about each case, beginning with Hawkins v. McGee: « What`s the problem? » and other purely legal issues. All « questions of law » that arise before, during and sometimes after a trial must be decided only by the judge and not by the jury. « Legal questions » are distinct from « questions of fact, » which are decided by the jury and only by the judge when there is no jury. See: Question of fact, factual judge, judge) (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. 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.

In law, a question of law, also known as a question of law, is a question that must be answered by applying the relevant legal principles to the interpretation of the law. [1] Such a question is different from a question of fact, which must be answered by reference to the facts and evidence and the conclusions arising from those facts. Answers to legal questions are usually expressed in general principles of law and can be applied to many situations rather than according to particular circumstances or factual situations. The answer to a question of law, as it applies to the particular facts of a case, is often referred to as a legal conclusion. However, when deciding these legal issues, judges often have to make findings of fact, and that is because most issues are a combination of law and fact. This is where it becomes more difficult to understand or explain things. « [T]he proper method of distinguishing questions of fact from questions of law was elusive to say the least. [i] Moreover, the Court has not yet arrived at a « rule or principle which infallibly distinguishes a finding of fact from a legal conclusion. » [ii] A question of fact can only be resolved by a jury or judge in a court case, that is, a trial without the presence of a jury. A typical legal question in a drunk driving case is whether the prosecutor has proven that a person is drunk because the officer testifies that they failed one or more field field sobriety tests, had slurred speech, or had bloodshot eyes. In a case of self-defence in which murder took place, a question of fact could be whether the defendant had an honest and reasonable presumption that there was an imminent threat of death, grievous bodily harm or sexual assault. To make both decisions, juries are called « triers of fact. » 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. The short and simple answer is that questions of law must be decided by the judge, while questions of fact must be decided by the jury. Although technically correct, this short answer is incomplete. Especially if you`re charged with a crime like drunk driving. When two parties sign a written agreement with the word « contract, » it is usually a contract. If a statute gives federal courts jurisdiction over a particular type of claim, they have jurisdiction. What makes the cases interesting – and fun – are not the facts or claims that are easy to make, but those that are tricky.

The problem is never a question that can be solved with a simple and clear answer. So what is a legal issue and how do you identify it before that first cold call? Here are my tips for identifying these legal issues. In certain cases, the State Supreme Court may, on the application of a party to an ongoing or ex officio dispute, administer a question of law in the highest court of another state or tribe or of Canada, a Canadian province or territory, Mexico or a Mexican state if: (3) As a jury, You have to decide on the merits of this case. It`s your job and no one else`s. You need to think about all the evidence, and then decide what each piece of evidence means and how much weight you give it. That includes if you believe what each of the witnesses said. What you decide of a fact in this case is final. The answers to questions of fact are determined by a trier of fact, such as a jury or judge. In many jurisdictions, such as England and Wales, appellate courts generally do not consider remedies based on errors of fact (errors in the answer to a question of fact).

On the contrary, the findings of fact of the first place of jurisdiction are generally the subject of considerable attention on the part of the courts of appeal. [3] In law, a question of fact, also known as a question of fact, is a question that must be answered by reference to the facts and evidence, as well as the conclusions arising from those facts. Such a question is different from a point of law which must be answered by applying relevant legal principles. The answer to a question of fact (a « finding of fact ») usually depends on particular circumstances or factual situations. [2] An issue may be characterized as an appeal as a question of mixed law and fact. A mixed question arises when the facts of the case are acknowledged and the applicable rule of law is not challenged; The question then is whether the rule of law has been properly applied to the facts. In criminal proceedings, for example, suppose a trial court, at the defendant`s objection, allows the prosecution to present evidence that the defendant has been identified as the perpetrator. If the accused is found guilty and challenges the identification procedure on appeal, it is a question of law and fact.