The distinction between what is fact and what is opinion is perhaps one of the most fundamental distinctions in law. But in reality, it’s a lawyer’s distinction. In the real world, and in the minds of many jurors and some judges, facts and opinions are combined and mixed.An eyewitness says: quality A witness who will explain the company’s testing procedures will also comment on his perceptions. sufficient About those efforts. Legal standards limit the extent to which fact witnesses can share their opinions, but the idea that fact witnesses are limited to, as the name suggests, “limited to facts only” has become Sometimes it’s more difficult to enforce. For practical testimony. Like many other legal dichotomies, the distinction between fact and opinion can break down when it comes to application.
The latest research published from Canada questions that practical distinction when it comes to evaluating testimonials and provides further reason to believe that the mixture may be beneficial in some ways. Researchers (MacLean & Miller, 2024) examined workplace investigations and conducted an experiment in which witnesses’ nonfactual statements significantly influenced the interpretation and acceptance of evidence. In this post, we look at that study and what it says about our ability to trust and enforce the distinction between fact and opinion.
Research: A mix of opinion and fact.
Researchers begin with the idea that when witnesses are familiar with facts, they often include background information such as opinions and interpretations that connect the facts. Observers very often have theories about what facts mean to them, and those theories end up being conveyed along with the facts. Additionally, confirmation bias causes us to retain and emphasize some facts over others.
We tested a scenario (a forklift-pedestrian collision) in the context of a workplace investigation, where study participants received eyewitness statements and rated the reliability and usefulness of those statements. The statements contained the same basic facts, half contained “unverifiable” opinions, and the other half contained neutral statements. The test was whether the inclusion of an opinion statement (“he’s a slob”) interacted with statements of fact about the forklift driver’s record. The researchers found that the opinions significantly biased participants’ interpretations of the facts. “In short, the uncheckable content significantly biased participants’ impressions of the eyewitness’s certainty and their judgments of the cause of the event.”
Implications: Don’t rely too much on jurors’ ability to disentangle.
There may be situations in which you want to exaggerate, downplay, or eliminate an opinion. There are a few things to keep in mind when considering how jurors will process these strategies.
Jurors cannot easily distinguish between opinion and fact.
Researchers report on a series of studies showing that people cannot easily distinguish between fact and opinion. For most of us, the distinction between “what I agree with” and “what I don’t agree with” is much more pronounced. They found the same in the current study. When research participants receive an opinion, they are likely to misclassify it as fact, especially if the opinion resonates with what they already believe. This emphasizes the selfish tendency to think that facts support our views and that counterarguments are just opinions.
Opinions end up reinforcing facts.
The researchers also cite studies showing that opinions make up a significant portion of witness statements (19 percent to 32 percent). There’s probably a reason for that. Humans are more than just cameras that record experiences for later recall. Instead, we integrate what we experience and find meaning from it. As the researchers point out, people develop theories about what facts mean and what connects them. Even in strictly factual presentations, it is inevitable that these theories will be part of it. If theory can help the interpreter understand the situation, it can help the listener as well.
If a fact witness makes a mistake, his or her testimony may be improved.
Research has shown that when factual testimony is mixed with opinion, participants perceive the witness’s testimony as more factual and more diagnostic, especially if observers believe that the opinion is consistent with their hypothesis. It turned out that I started to see it as. That is, the “What did you think about that?” question can be part of the bigger picture. Under the rules of evidence, fact witnesses cannot share what happens. Expert By sharing opinions, you can share rational opinions based on the witnesses’ perceptions. Research shows that this tends to increase the impact of testimony.