LogFAQs > #986544381

Much of the tire fire in this topic seems to follow from the all-too-common confusion between facts and opinions. Such confusion is easy to understand, since the legal system is one of the only US institutions that preserves this distinction, to its credit, while virtually every other institution in the country, especially in media and politics, does everything they can to erase this distinction.

So here's a hypothetical press release/press conference or the like from a prosecutor, with individual statements tagged.

A: "Our office has charged X with the murder of Y as detailed in the indictment."

B: "We intend to prove this case to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt in a fair trial."

C: "Of course, X really is guilty."

D: "In fact, their guilt is so obvious that this fair trial is a waste of time and money that could be better spent elsewhere, but we have to follow the rules".

E: "Let just take this guilty-as-hell SOB out back and shoot him."

A here is a fact. C, D, E are opinions, varying in how outrageous they are. B is a statement of intent that is almost surely permissible (but IANAL).

Because most people are stupid and easily led, the legal system seeks to prevent the jury pool being tainted by prejudicial statements of opinion from authority figures. So C, D, E here are all forbidden.