What is the primary distinction between opinion and fact in legal context?

In the legal context, the primary distinction between opinion and fact lies in the nature of the information being presented and who is qualified to provide that information. A key point is that opinions are typically reserved for the judge or jury rather than lay witnesses. This is because opinions often require specialized knowledge, training, or expertise that a lay witness may not possess, whereas facts are considered observable or verifiable truths.

For example, a lay witness may recount what they saw or heard, which constitutes a fact. In contrast, when a witness attempts to assess the weight of evidence, interpret behaviors, or draw inferences from the evidence presented, they are venturing into opinion territory. Legal rules generally direct that such determinations should be left to the judge or jury, who are tasked with evaluating the evidence and making conclusions based on it.

This distinction reinforces the integrity and reliability of the evidence presented in court, ensuring that only those who are suitably qualified can provide interpretive insights on the matters at hand.