There is a vast number of legal terms, and some of them may be confusing or difficult to distinguish between. For example, while questions of law and questions of fact may sound similar, there is a difference between them. Overall, the primary characteristic of the former is that such questions are the responsibility of the judge, while the latter, the questions of fact, are dealt with by the jury (Barone, 2017).
To be more precise, only a judge can resolve issues like the identification of the law to be applied to a certain controversy or case, as well as the way this law can be used. The judge should also decide whether the proposed pieces of evidence can be considered relevant, what instructions the jury has to follow when addressing the case, whether the arrest is valid, and if a confession is inadmissible (Barone, 2017). All these matters are the questions of law, and they define the overall process and can only be decided by the judge.
Further, some issues can only be decided by the jury or by the judge if a trial is without the presence of the jury. Reichel (2018) states that “basically, the judge is allowed to express an opinion about the defense as long as questions of fact are left to the jurors” (p. 196).
In other words, questions of facts refer to those matters that allow the jury to decide whether the words of witnesses are credible or the proofs are strong. For instance, while the judge can identify the existing evidence as relevant (a question of law), it is for the jurors to analyze the meaning behind the evidence (a question of fact).
References
Barone, P. (2017). What is the difference between a question of law and a question of fact?
Reichel, P. L. (2018). Comparative criminal justice systems: A topical approach (7th ed.) London, England: Pearson.