Judicial notice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. |
 |
This article may be confusing or unclear to readers. Please help clarify the article; suggestions may be found on the talk page. (July 2009) |
 |
| Evidence |
|---|
| Part of the common law series |
| Types of evidence |
| Testimony · Documentary Physical / Real · Digital Exculpatory · Scientific Demonstrative Eyewitness identification Genetic (DNA) · Lies |
| Relevance |
| Burden of proof · Laying a foundation Public policy exclusions Character · Habit · Similar fact |
| Authentication |
| Chain of custody Judicial notice · Best evidence rule Self-authenticating document Ancient document |
| Witnesses |
| Competence · Privilege Direct examination · Cross-examination · Redirect Impeachment · Recorded recollection Expert witness · Dead Man's Statute |
| Hearsay and exceptions |
| in English law · in United States law Confessions · Business records Excited utterance · Dying declaration Party admission · Ancient document Declaration against interest Present sense impression · Res gestae Learned treatise · Implied assertion |
| Other common law areas |
| Contract · Tort · Property Wills, trusts and estates Criminal law |
Judicial notice is a rule in the law of evidence that allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the truth of that fact is so notorious or well known that it cannot be refuted. This is done upon the request of the party seeking to have the fact at issue determined by the court. Matters admitted under judicial notice are accepted without being formally introduced by a witness or other rule of evidence, and even if one party wishes to lead evidence to the contrary.
Judicial notice is frequently used for the simplest, most obvious common sense facts, such as which day of the week corresponded to a particular calendar date.
Contents |
[edit] Judicial notice in the Federal Rules of Evidence
In the United States, Article II of the Federal Rules of Evidence ("FRE") addresses judicial notice in federal courts, and this article is widely copied by U.S. States. FRE 201(b)) permit judges to take judicial notice of two categories of facts:
- Those that are "generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court" (e.g. locations of streets within the court's jurisdiction) or
- Those that are "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned" (e.g. the day of the week on a certain date).[1]
The FRE also notes that judicial notice may be permissive or mandatory. If it is permissive, then the court may choose to take judicial notice of the fact proffered, or may reject the request and require the party to introduce evidence in support of the point. If it is mandatory, then the court must take judicial notice of the fact proffered. Although the FRE does not expand upon the kinds of facts that would fall into one category or another, court cases, however, have determined that courts must take mandatory judicial notice of federal public laws and treaties, state public laws, and official regulations of both federal and local government agencies.
[edit] Judicial notice and the burden of proof
The effect of the court taking judicial notice is different in civil and criminal trials. In a civil trial, the fact taken notice of is thereby conclusively proved.[citation needed]
In criminal trials, however, the defendant has the right to contest every fact that might tend to incriminate him. Therefore, the court taking judicial notice would simply allow the jury to make the finding that the court took notice of, but would not require this outcome, and would not prevent the defense from presenting evidence to rebut the noticed fact.[citation needed]
[edit] Judicial notice in foreign affairs
Legal disputes about foreign affairs are generally settled by judicial notice by obtaining the information directly from the office of the Secretary of State (in the United States) or the Foreign Secretary (in the United Kingdom). For example, if a litigant in an extradition hearing attempted to argue that Israel was not a sovereign state, a statement from the Secretary of State that the U.S. recognized Israel as a sovereign state would settle the issue and no evidence could be led to the contrary.
Recently, Court of Appeals decisions regarding the legal rights of detainees of Guantanamo Bay took judicial notice of Cuba having no sovereignty over the U.S. naval base in that location despite claims by the United States government that it was Cuban territory and not subject to the application of United States law.
Federal courts and the courts of most jurisdictions have determined that matters of foreign law are subject to permissive judicial notice.
[edit] Official notice
During the prosecution phase of U.S. patent applications, a similar concept to judicial notices are applied by patent examiners, but the process is referred to as taking "official notice". In a typical patent claim rejection, the examiner has to present prima facie evidence (usually as a published document) that the subject matter of a rejected claim was known prior to the application for patent by the inventor. However, when the limitation of the claim is so trivial or well known in the prior art, examiners can take official notice to that fact. Patent applicants are then allowed to traverse the official notice given by an examiner, in which case the examiner must present an evidentiary document to prove the fact or limitation is well known.[2]
