United States v. Bello
194 F.3d 18 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a criminal case, a court may take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact that constitutes an element of the offense, provided the court instructs the jury under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(g) that it may, but is not required to, accept the noticed fact as conclusive.
Facts:
- Jesús Bello and Domingo Santana-Rosa were both inmates at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico (MDC-Guaynabo), where Bello worked as a food service orderly.
- On July 23, 1996, Bello refused to serve Santana a second helping of food, leading Santana to threaten that he and another inmate were 'going to crack open [Bello’s] head.'
- Another inmate later informed Bello that Santana planned to attack him in the prison's recreational yard.
- Bello did not report the threat to prison authorities because he feared being labeled a 'snitch.'
- Two days later, on July 25, 1996, Bello saw Santana playing dominoes in the recreational yard.
- Bello grabbed a push broom, removed its head, approached Santana from behind, and struck him in the back of the head with the broom head.
- Santana collapsed unconscious and was hospitalized with an epidural hematoma.
Procedural Posture:
- The government filed a pretrial motion in U.S. District Court asking the court to take judicial notice that MDC-Guaynabo is within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
- Jesús Bello was indicted on one count of assault resulting in serious bodily injury within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
- At trial, the district court granted the government's request and took judicial notice of the jurisdictional fact, instructing the jury it was not required to accept the fact as conclusive.
- The court denied Bello's request for jury instructions on the defenses of duress and self-defense.
- The jury found Bello guilty.
- The district court denied Bello's post-trial motions and sentenced him to 120 months imprisonment.
- Bello (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, arguing against the United States (appellee).
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 a trial court violate a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by taking judicial notice of an element of the charged offense, namely that the crime occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, if the court instructs the jury that it is not required to accept the judicially noticed fact as conclusive?
Opinions:
Majority - Lipez, Circuit Judge.
No. A trial court does not violate a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment rights by taking judicial notice of an element of the offense, so long as the jury is properly instructed that it is not required to accept the fact as conclusive. The jurisdictional status of MDC-Guaynabo is an adjudicative fact 'capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned' under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b)(2), such as official government maps and documents. The constitutional safeguard for the defendant's right to a jury trial is Rule 201(g), which treats the judicially noticed fact as a permissible inference rather than a binding conclusion. By instructing the jury that it could accept or reject the noticed fact, the trial court preserved the jury's role as the ultimate finder of fact for every element of the crime, thus satisfying the Sixth Amendment. Additionally, the court correctly refused to instruct the jury on self-defense because there was no evidence of an imminent threat; the assault occurred two days after the initial threat, and Bello had lawful alternatives, such as reporting the threat to prison authorities.
Analysis:
This case affirms the constitutionality of taking judicial notice of an element of a crime, which streamlines prosecutions by removing the need to formally prove indisputable facts like federal jurisdiction over a federal prison. The decision's significance lies in its emphasis on the procedural safeguard of Federal Rule of Evidence 201(g). It clarifies that while a judge can present an easily verifiable fact to the jury, the jury's ultimate authority to decide guilt on every element remains untouched, thus balancing judicial efficiency with the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. This precedent solidifies the distinction between binding judicial notice in civil cases and non-binding judicial notice in criminal cases.
