22. Which of the following instructions regarding judicial notice may the judge legitimately give the jury?

Judicial notice is when a judge accepts a fact as true even though no evidence to prove it has been offered. Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 201(b) defines a fact that may be noticed as one «not subject to reasonable dispute» because it: (i) «is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction» (notorious facts); or (ii) «can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned» (manifest facts). Judicial notice may be taken of such facts at any time, whether or not requested, and such notice is mandatory if a party requests and supplies the court with the necessary information. A party is entitled to be heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter noted.

FRE 201(f) states that in a criminal case, «the court must instruct the jury that it may or may not accept the noticed fact as conclusive.» Thus, in a criminal case, the jury will be instructed that it may, but is not required to, accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed.

C is correct. This is the only jury instruction provided that complies with FRE 201(f), which requires that in a criminal case, the court instructs the jury that it is permitted, but is not required, to accept a judicially-noticed fact as conclusive. Thus, a judicially noticed fact in a criminal case allows the court to instruct on a permissible inference, but nothing more. This is why the instruction is proper when it states «If you find that the defendant obtained the substance in Kansas City and delivered them to Chicago, then you may, but you are not required to, find that the transaction was interstate in nature» (emphasis added).

A is incorrect. Under (FRE) 201(f), a judge may not instruct a jury to find a fact in a criminal case, even if it is a fact that is subject to judicial notice. Such an instruction would violate the accused's Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury on all elements of the crime. A judicially noticed fact in a criminal case allows the court to instruct on a permissible inference, but nothing more.

B is incorrect. The government has the burden of proving all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Under FRE 201(f), a judicially noticed fact in a criminal case cannot shift that constitutionally-mandated burden of proof. Here, the court may instruct on a permissible inference, but nothing more.

D is incorrect. Under FRE 201(f), a judicially noticed fact in a criminal case does not create a presumption. In civil cases, a judicially noticed fact is conclusive; in a criminal case, because of the accused's constitutional right to trial by jury, the judicially noticed fact can be brought to the attention of the jury, but the jury is free to reject it. Any instruction about a «presumption» is inappropriate in these circumstances. As explained above, the court may instruct on a permissible inference, but nothing more.