Judicial notice is the court’s power to accept well-known or indisputable facts as true, without the presentation of supporting evidence.
According to Article II, Section 201(b) of the Massachusetts Guide to Evidence:
The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
For example, a judge might take judicial notice that Boston is the capital of Massachusetts. Such a fact would be generally known within the court’s territorial jurisdiction.
Likewise, a judge could accept, without supporting evidence, that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. This scientific fact can be readily verified by “sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” (See, for instance, the Commerce Departments’ Office of Weights and Measures.)
The judge may not use his specialized knowledge (whether professional or personal) to take judicial notice of facts that are not commonly known. The Appeals Court thus reversed the decision of a trial judge who took judicial notice that the search warrant application process took more than a couple hours. Such a fact is not generally known. (See Commonwealth v. Barrett.)
Additionally, the judge may not take judicial notice of “material factual issues” that should be decided at trial. In Commonwealth v. Hilaire, for example, it was inappropriate for a trial judge to take judicial notice of demographic data used to identify the defendant.
Judicial notice also extends to “the contents of federal regulations and the laws of foreign jurisdiction.” Mass.G.Evid. Art. II, § 202(b) This does not apply, however, to municipal by-laws or ordinances—even within the state.
A court may take judicial notice of legal proceedings that occurred within the Commonwealth. But the findings in those proceedings usually cannot be judicially noticed for substantive reasons. For example, in The Matter of Hernandez, the Appeals Court held that a judge could take judicial notice that a defendant was deemed incompetent in an earlier court proceeding. However, the judge could not accept that incompetency finding as true in the later case.