The process by which a court, and by extension the judicial system it operates in, comes to recognize something as an established fact. For example, at some point the validity of identification by fingerprints became generally accepted. While various lawsuits in regards to UFOs have, iirc, been rejected because it simply isn’t considered an established fact that alien visitations have actually occurred.
Precedent? Caselaw?
Legal precedent?
The court doesn’t find much to be established *fact *besides the Constitution.
Though sometimes when judging a matter, the court will say that something is “de facto”, like ‘de facto segregation’, but i don’t think that’s what you mean.
edit: I just confused myself. I don’t know what you’re asking.
Are you talking about judicial notice? Ie. the court may accept something because it is irrefutably known to be true?
You may be thinking of “judicial notice.”
Generally accepted scientific principles (in layman’s terms) or Frye standard.
Judicial notice sounds right. What the context is is a short story I’m writing in which a murder defendent is faced with the task of getting a court to accept that the “person” he killed was in fact a vampire, when of course everyone knows there’s no such thing as…
Interesting story line.
If we assume for a moment that vampires exist with all the typical characteristics found in the literature, does an individual’s vampire-hood make it legally OK to kill them? (Ignoring basic self-defense in *extremis *doctrines) After all, they started out as a human and then became something both human and other-than-human.
Veddy interesting …
You may be thinking of “Judicial Notice,” by DeJure DeJure.
The court may also take judicial notice of such things as dates (“The court will take judicial notice of the fact that March 2, 2011 was a Wednesday”), historical facts ("…that Franklin Roosevelt was President of the United States on January 17, 1938"), geographical features ("…that State Route 11 runs north from East Liverpool, Ohio"), etc. It’s for any relevant fact that neither side disputes and that has some significance to the case.
If it’s something unique to the case, such as that the defendant was wearing a jeans jacket on the day of the alleged offense, or that the victim received treatment at Chamberlain Memorial Hospital, the parties may stipulate to it. The court accepts that fact as true, and the jury is instructed that they should regard it as already proven.
What **Elendil’s Heir **just said. In a criminal matter, there are very few things that the Court can take as “fact.” And it is usually stuff like dates, time of day, geographical features, etc…
Don’t forget that in a jury trial, the judge is really just the referee. The jury is the actual, “trier of facts.” Meaning it is the jury’s responsibility to make factual determinations. In your case, it would be up to the jury to decide whether or not there was sufficient evidence to believe that the decedant (dead guy) was a vampire. Is there a body? I thought vampires disintegrated when they died?
Anyway, it would look something like this… Prosecutor puts on his case, calls witnesses, admits evidence. Defense would cross-examine prosecutor’s witnesses. Prosecutor rests. Jury leaves the courtroom.
Defense makes “motion to strike” to the judge. Defense argues that even if you take as fact all the evidence presented by the prosecutor (in the light most favorable to the prosecutor), the facts as presented are not sufficient to meet the criteria of the law (elements of murder). Basically you would argue that under the law, killing a vampire is not murder because they are not human. The prosecutor would respond that your argument, while rooted in a question of law, rests on a findng of fact, i.e, that the dead guy was a vampire, and that determining facts is the exclusive domain of the jury. Further, that because it is an affirmative defense, the burden lies with the defense to prove the dead guy is not a human, not the prosecutor’s job to prove that he is. Judge denies the motion to strike.
Defense puts on their case. Calls witnesses to show dead guy is a vampire. Prosecutor cross-examines. Maybe calls rebuttal witnesses. Then the defense rests. Jury leaves the room. Defense renews “motion to strike.” Denied for the same reasons.
Big fight with prosecutor over jury instructions, which must be approved by the judge. The Defense will want an instruction that says, basically, “the elements of murder require the decedant to be a human. If you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the dead guy is in fact, not human, the prosecutor has failed to prove element 4 of murder… therefore, not guilty.”
Jury comes back in. Closing arguments, basically detailing the jury instruction. Hopefully, not guilty.
Good luck!!!