Appellate courts must accept a fact-finder’s findings even when wrong

Evidence

Because law is committed to the distinction between the trier of fact and the determiner of law, findings of fact are typically separated from conclusions of law when the same trial judge takes on both tasks. More importantly, findings of fact are typically, except in the most egregious of instances, treated as sacrosanct in the appellate process. It is only slight hyperbole to say that if a jury were to find that the moon was made of green cheese, an appellate court ruling on a legal question about the moon or about green cheese would be expected to take the jury’s false conclusion as true. — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 388

Categorization

• XREF: Echoes the suboptimality theme from rule-based decision-making earlier in the book; also connects to work on institutional epistemic humility. — connects to: Directed verdicts require courts to decide if facts permit reasonable inferences — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 221; Permissible jury inferences require a logical probability connecting basic facts to ultimate facts — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 217; Legal experts conclude courts do not reliably punish evident cheating — Jonathan Harr, A Civil Action, 3127 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Directed verdicts require courts to decide if facts permit reasonable inferences #expands (0.60) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 221
• Permissible jury inferences require a logical probability connecting basic facts to ultimate facts #corroborates (0.45) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 217