United States of America v. José Amado-Núñez
357 F.3d 119 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A fact-finder may use common knowledge and experience, known as 'background facts,' to infer a required element of a crime from circumstantial evidence without the need for formal judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201.
Facts:
- On November 25, 1999, José Amado-Núñez was at the Luis Muñoz Marin International Airport in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
- A customs inspector at the primary screening point randomly selected Amado-Núñez for a more thorough secondary examination.
- The second inspector searched Amado-Núñez’s bag and discovered packages containing 887 stamps in the bottom.
- The stamps purported to be issued by the Puerto Rico Department of the Treasury for use on coin-operated machines.
- A criminal investigator noticed that many of the stamps had duplicate serial numbers, suggesting they were not genuine.
- When questioned, Amado-Núñez claimed to own coin machines but gave inconsistent answers and could not provide proof of purchase for the stamps.
- The stamps were later confirmed to be counterfeit versions of those used to show payment of an annual excise tax.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted José Amado-Núñez for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2314.
- Amado-Núñez was tried in a bench trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
- The district court judge found Amado-Núñez guilty of the charged offense.
- The court sentenced Amado-Núñez to two years imprisonment.
- Amado-Núñez, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does evidence that a defendant underwent a customs inspection at an international airport, combined with the fact-finder's common knowledge that such inspections are reserved for international arrivals, suffice to prove the 'foreign commerce' element of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 beyond a reasonable doubt?
Opinions:
Majority - Boudin, Chief Judge
Yes, evidence of a customs inspection is sufficient for a fact-finder to infer travel in foreign commerce. The court distinguishes between 'adjudicative facts' (facts about the specific case) which require formal judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201, and 'background facts,' which are part of the general fund of human knowledge and experience. The proposition that routine customs inspections are for international arrivals and not domestic ones is a well-known 'background fact.' A fact-finder is permitted to combine the trial evidence (an adjudicative fact that Amado-Núñez was subjected to a customs inspection) with this background fact to infer that he arrived from a foreign country, thus satisfying the foreign commerce element of the statute. This process of inference does not require the formal procedure of judicial notice. The court also rejected Amado-Núñez's second argument that the counterfeit items were 'licenses' and not 'tax stamps' under the statute. It found that the plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 specifically covers 'tax stamps,' and the items were clearly counterfeits of stamps used to evidence payment of a tax, regardless of whether they also served as a license.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the important distinction between adjudicative facts, which are subject to the formal requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 201, and the vast array of 'background' or 'evaluative' facts that fact-finders permissibly rely on. It establishes that common knowledge about how government processes like customs work can be used to bridge evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case. The ruling lowers the burden on prosecutors to provide direct evidence for every link in a chain of inference, allowing reliance on the common sense of the judge or jury for foundational propositions. This impacts cases built on circumstantial evidence by validating the use of logical inferences drawn from widely understood, but not formally proven, real-world knowledge.
