Judicial notice

Last updated

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, or so authoritatively attested, that it cannot reasonably be doubted. This is done upon the request of the party seeking to rely on the fact at issue. Facts and materials admitted under judicial notice are accepted without being formally introduced by a witness or other rule of evidence, even if one party wishes to plead evidence to the contrary.

Contents

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 or the approximate time at sunset. [1] However, it could even be used within one jurisdiction to notice a law of another jurisdiction—such as one which provides average baselines for motor vehicle stopping distances. [2]

Judicial notice in the United States

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. Article II of the FRE consists of a single rule, Rule 201. [3] FRE 201 covers judicial notice of adjudicative facts, which are those concerning the parties to a proceeding, but not of legislative facts, which are general. [3] [4]

FRE 201(b) permits judges to take judicial notice of two categories of facts:

  1. Those that are "generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court" (e.g. locations of streets within the court's jurisdiction) or
  2. 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). [3]

FRE 201(c) notes that judicial notice may be permissive or mandatory. Under the wording of the rule, judicial notice is permissive if the court takes such notice on its own but mandatory if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information. [3]

Courts have ruled that judicial notice must be taken of federal public laws and treaties, state public laws, and official regulations of both federal and local government agencies.

A trial court's decision to take judicial notice or not to do so is reviewed on appeal under the standard of abuse of discretion. [5]

Judicial notice and the burden of proof

FRE 201(f) establishes that 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. In a criminal case, 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.

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). 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. (In the United Kingdom, similar result could be had to information from the Foreign Secretary.)

Recently,[ when? ] Court of Appeals decisions[ which? ] regarding the legal rights of detainees of Guantanamo Bay took judicial notice[ citation needed ] 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.[ citation needed ]

Federal courts and the courts of most jurisdictions have determined that matters of foreign law are subject to permissive judicial notice.

Official notice

During the prosecution phase of U.S. patent applications, a similar concept to judicial notice is 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 from the prior art, usually patent documents or other printed publications, that the subject matter of a rejected claim was known or would have been obvious prior to the application for patent by the inventor. However, examiners may officially notice facts that "are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known". 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. [6]

Historical examples

In the 1858 murder trial of William Armstrong, his attorney, then-former Congressman Abraham Lincoln, used judicial notice to establish that a claim by a witness to have used moonlight to see events could not have taken place since there was no visible moon that evening. This led to Armstrong's acquittal. [7]

In the 1934 United States Supreme Court case Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell , Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes took judicial notice of the economic conditions of the Great Depression to help conclude that a state of emergency existed, and thus the State of Minnesota could properly impose on the contracts made by private persons to promote a broad societal interest. Specifically, the Court upheld a Minnesota statute preventing loan companies from foreclosing on homes before 1935, despite mortgage agreements allowing companies the right to do so. [8]

In the 1981 case of Mel Mermelstein v. Institute for Historical Review , the Superior Court of Los Angeles County took judicial notice of the fact that Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in 1944. [9]

Judicial notice in Australia

In Australia, judicial notice may be taken of facts that are "not reasonably open to question". [10] This may include, for example, the location of well-known geographical features. However, both parties must be given notice of the judicial officer's intention to rely upon the information. [11]

Judicial notice in Canada

Besides the categories of judicially noticed facts found in other common law jurisdictions, the Supreme Court of Canada has required Canadian courts to take judicial notice (connaissance d'office) of such facts as the history of colonialism in Canada and its harmful effects on Indigenous peoples:

To be clear, courts must take judicial notice of such matters as the history of colonialism, displacement, and residential schools and how that history continues to translate into lower educational attainment, lower incomes, higher unemployment, higher rates of substance abuse and suicide, and of course higher levels of incarceration for Aboriginal peoples.
—R. v. Ipeelee, at para. 60 [12]

Some judges have taken a similar approach to the history of racism against other ethnic groups in Canada, such as African Canadians, concerning whom Justice Nakatsuru of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice wrote:

I find that for African Canadians, the time has come where I as a sentencing judge must take judicial notice of such matters as the history of colonialism (in Canada and elsewhere), slavery, policies and practices of segregation, intergenerational trauma, and racism both overt and systemic as they relate to African Canadians and how that has translated into socio-economic ills and higher levels of incarceration.
—R. v. Jackson, at para. 82 [13]

However, some other judges have declined to follow this approach. [14]

Related Research Articles

An expert witness, particularly in common law countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States, is a person whose opinion by virtue of education, training, certification, skills or experience, is accepted by the judge as an expert. The judge may consider the witness's specialized opinion about evidence or about facts before the court within the expert's area of expertise, to be referred to as an "expert opinion". Expert witnesses may also deliver "expert evidence" within the area of their expertise. Their testimony may be rebutted by testimony from other experts or by other evidence or facts.

Criminal procedure is the adjudication process of the criminal law. While criminal procedure differs dramatically by jurisdiction, the process generally begins with a formal criminal charge with the person on trial either being free on bail or incarcerated, and results in the conviction or acquittal of the defendant. Criminal procedure can be either in form of inquisitorial or adversarial criminal procedure.

A deposition in the law of the United States, or examination for discovery in the law of Canada, involves the taking of sworn, out-of-court oral testimony of a witness that may be reduced to a written transcript for later use in court or for discovery purposes. Depositions are commonly used in litigation in the United States and Canada. They are almost always conducted outside court by the lawyers themselves, with no judge present to supervise the examination.

Hearsay is testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting an out-of-court statement that is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

In law, a summary judgment, also referred to as judgment as a matter of law or summary disposition, is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial. Summary judgments may be issued on the merits of an entire case, or on discrete issues in that case. The formulation of the summary judgment standard is stated in somewhat different ways by courts in different jurisdictions. In the United States, the presiding judge generally must find there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." In England and Wales, the court rules for a party without a full trial when "the claim, defence or issue has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial."

Voir dire is a legal term for procedures during a trial that help a judge decide certain issues:

In United States law, a motion is a procedural device to bring a limited, contested issue before a court for decision. It is a request to the judge to make a decision about the case. Motions may be made at any point in administrative, criminal or civil proceedings, although that right is regulated by court rules which vary from place to place. The party requesting the motion may be called the moving party, or may simply be the movant. The party opposing the motion is the nonmoving party or nonmovant.

The court system of Canada forms the country's judiciary, formally known as "The King on the Bench", which interprets the law and is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern civil procedure in United States district courts. They are the companion to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rules promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act become part of the FRCP unless, within seven months, the United States Congress acts to veto them. The Court's modifications to the rules are usually based upon recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's internal policy-making body.

The federal judiciary of the United States is one of the three branches of the federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government. The U.S. federal judiciary consists primarily of the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts. It also includes a variety of other lesser federal tribunals.

First adopted in 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence codify the evidence law that applies in United States federal courts. In addition, many states in the United States have either adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, with or without local variations, or have revised their own evidence rules or codes to at least partially follow the federal rules.

Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for remedies available to those whose Charter rights are shown to be violated. Some scholars have argued that it was actually section 24 that ensured that the Charter would not have the primary flaw of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights. Canadian judges would be reassured that they could indeed strike down statutes on the basis that they contradicted a bill of rights.

The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction.

Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence of the United States, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial. The Federal Rules of Evidence contain the rules governing impeachment in US federal courts.

A quasi-judicial body is a non-judicial body which can interpret law. It is an entity such as an arbitration panel or tribunal board, which can be a public administrative agency but also a contract- or private law entity, which has been given powers and procedures resembling those of a court of law or judge and which is obliged to objectively determine facts and draw conclusions from them so as to provide the basis of an official action. Such actions are able to remedy a situation or impose legal penalties, and they may affect the legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trial</span> Coming together of parties to a dispute, to present information in a tribunal

In law, a trial is a coming together of parties to a dispute, to present information in a tribunal, a formal setting with the authority to adjudicate claims or disputes. One form of tribunal is a court. The tribunal, which may occur before a judge, jury, or other designated trier of fact, aims to achieve a resolution to their dispute.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian administrative law</span> Law governing the government agencies of Canada

Canadian administrative law is the body of law that addresses the actions and operations of governments and governmental agencies in Canada. That is, the law concerns the manner in which courts can review the decisions of administrative decision makers such as a board, tribunal, commission, agency, or Crown minister, while exercising ministerial discretion.

Relevance, in the common law of evidence, is the tendency of a given item of evidence to prove or disprove one of the legal elements of the case, or to have probative value to make one of the elements of the case likelier or not. Probative is a term used in law to signify "tending to prove". Probative evidence "seeks the truth". Generally in law, evidence that is not probative is inadmissible and the rules of evidence permit it to be excluded from a proceeding or stricken from the record "if objected to by opposing counsel". A balancing test may come into the picture if the value of the evidence needs to be weighed versus its prejudicial nature.

R v Ipeelee is a Supreme Court of Canada decision which reaffirmed the court's previous holdings in R v Gladue, in that when sentencing an Indigenous person, every sentencing judge must consider: (a) the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular Indigenous individual before the courts; and (b) the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the person before the court because of their particular Indigenous heritage or connection.

References

  1. ↑ "Complete Sun and Moon Data for One Day". The United States Naval Observatory. Archived from the original on 2011-04-06. Retrieved 2013-08-06.
  2. ↑ Code of Virginia § 46.2-880 Tables of speed and stopping distances
  3. 1 2 3 4 "Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts". Archived from the original on 2010-08-19. Retrieved 2018-11-30.
  4. ↑ "Adjudicative Fact". Wex. Cornell Law School. Retrieved 23 March 2018.
  5. ↑ Judicial Notice on Appeal.
  6. ↑ USPTO MPEP § 2144.03.
  7. ↑ Death of William Armstrong: Was once held for murder and Abraham Lincoln defended him. The New York Times, May 14, 1899.
  8. ↑ Home Loan Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
  9. ↑ "California Judge Rules Holocaust Did Happen". The New York Times . Associated Press. October 10, 1981. p. A26. Retrieved November 20, 2010.
  10. ↑ Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 144
  11. ↑ Farkas v R [2014] NSWCCA 141.
  12. ↑ R. v. Ipeelee , 2012 SCC 13 (CanLII), [2012] 1 SCR 433 (LeBel, J.)
  13. ↑ R. v. Jackson , 2018 ONSC 2527 (CanLII) (Nakatsuru J.).
  14. ↑ R. v. Hazell , 2020 ONCJ 358 (CanLII) (De Filippis J.), at para. 27.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.