In a court case, judges are professional judges of fact. At a hearing, the judge makes both findings of fact and legal decisions. [4] The findings of a trial judge are not normally changed by a court of appeal. [5] The parties may appoint a neutral investigator to review the evidence and establish the facts of their dispute. The investigator`s results may be binding or non-binding. n. in a prosecution or proceeding, the jury or judge (if there is no jury) who decides whether the facts have been proved. Occasionally, a judge may appoint a „special master“ to investigate and report on the existence of certain facts. A trier of fact or investigator of fact is a person or group who determines what facts are available in a court proceeding (usually a trial) and how relevant they are to deciding the outcome. [1] To establish a fact is to decide, on the basis of the evidence presented, whether something existed or whether an event occurred. [2] In a jury trial, a jury is the trier of fact. The jury determines the facts and applies them to the law or relevant law that the judge must use to reach a verdict. Thus, in a jury trial, findings of fact are made by the jury, while the judge makes legal decisions about the evidence heard by the jury and the legal framework governing the case.

Juries are instructed to strictly obey the law prescribed by the judge, but are not required to do so. In some cases, this leads to jury annulment, when the jury`s verdict differs from what the law says. The investigator differs depending on the type of procedure. In a jury trial, it is the jury; In a trial without a jury, the judge is both the investigator and the judge of the law. In administrative proceedings, the investigator may be a hearing officer or a hearing body. [3] In the United States, an administrative judge (ALJ) presides over both hearings (and decides the law) and claims or disputes (in other words, ALJ-controlled proceedings are bench trials) concerning administrative law, but ALJs are not part of an independent judiciary.