De jure - something that (legitimately) exists as a result of law.
De facto - something that exists as a result of fact other than law.
De dicto - what is said about the thing.
De re - of the thing itself.

Interesting question I had a little look at, and I can see how such distinctions might bear on intent.

There was a case in England about the shooting of a police officer, who encountered two criminals.

One pulled a gun.

The police officer said: "Give me the gun!"

The older criminal said: "Let him have it!" and the accomplice shot the cop.

But did he mean: "Give the gun to the police officer."? Or did he mean: "Shoot the cop."?

Does it depend on de-dicto / de-re interpretations of the verb 'have' as used in the sentence "Let him have it"?

My grasp of this distinction is not great. I suspect it of the rankest subjectivism!

I'm more certain that de facto - the defendant might be guilty by virtue of a string of similar offences, that - de jure, the jury are unaware of!

I hope you get more replies. I'd like to understand this.