4 ms·
Trials are necessary when facts are in dispute. (Juries are traditionally the arbiter of facts, and judges the arbiters of law.) If there are no facts in disp
by dpifke 4y ago
Trials are necessary when facts are in dispute. (Juries are traditionally the arbiter of facts, and judges the arbiters of law.)
If there are no facts in dispute, and the case is only about what the law says, it's a more efficient use of the plaintiff's, defendant's, and the court's time to have it decided via summary judgment.
If you sue me for painting my house red, and I say my house is actually pink, but the law says you can't sue someone because you don't like the color of their house, then there'd be no need for a trial to determine if it's red or if it's pink.
- jfengel 4y agoI've never entirely understood how that's supposed to work. In the end, the jury rules on a matter of law: did the defendant's actions violate thus-and-such a law? They achieve that by having the law explained to them by the lawyers and the judge. It seems like the only fact they are asked to find is a legal fact. I'd understand if they asked, "Do you believe the defendant's alibi? Do you believe that the litigant had reason to think that their statements were false?" and so on. That is supposedly what your peers are good at (though I'm not really convinced). Instead they're given a quick law school tutorial and told to figure it out for themselves. It would also make sense if they were asked to decide what's just instead of what's legal, but they are explicitly told not to do that. As far as I can tell, the one thing prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges all agree on is that they hate jury nullification. So they instruct them in the law and tell them to rule on the law, which is a fact they're not competent to find.