35. How should the court proceed?

Judicial notice occurs when a judge accepts a fact as true even though no evidence to prove it has been offered. Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 201 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. In a criminal case, the jury will be instructed that it may, but is not required to, accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed.

B is correct. Under FRE 201, because the prosecutor supplied the fact that the bank is a federally insured institution, which is not subject to reasonable dispute, the court must take judicial notice because it is a manifest fact. However, because this is a criminal case, the jury should be instructed that it may, but is not required to, accept this judicially noticed fact as conclusive.

A is incorrect. While it is true that the court must take judicial notice, it is incorrect that the jury is required to accept the fact as conclusive. As explained above, FRE 201 states that in criminal cases, the jury is to be instructed that they may, but are not required to, take judicially noticed facts as conclusive.

C is incorrect. On the contrary, under FRE 201, the court must take judicial notice here because the prosecutor offered evidence establishing that it is not subject to reasonable dispute that the bank is federally insured.

D is incorrect. FRE 201 allows for two different avenues for judicially noticed facts. The first, facts generally known in the court's jurisdiction, may or may not apply here. It is arguable that the bank's status as a federally insured institution would, in fact, be generally known in the jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the other avenue does apply here: the prosecutor established that the fact is not subject to reasonable dispute. This means that it is a fact that «can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.» When a party offers such evidence, the fact must be judicially noticed.