r/crimdef

I’m a trial lawyer, and evidence is my jam. So I’m embarrassed to admit this, but I still do not really understand the ritual of judicial notice.

I understand the doctrine. I understand the kind of thing the Court can take notice of. But every time I actually ask for it, the exchange feels like this:

Me: Your Honor, I’d ask the Court to take judicial notice of [Poor Richard’s Almanack reflecting that it was sunny in Philadelphia on July 4, 1759 / the fact that Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of fraud on April 1 in X County / the Secretary of State’s website showing Defendant was administratively dissolved in 2018].

Court: Okay.

Me: …

Court: …

Me: So, just to be clear, the Court is taking judicial notice?

Court: Sure.

Me: …

Opposing counsel: …

Court: …

And then everyone just moves on with no opportunity to respond or acknowledgment at all.

It has gotten to the point where I’ve started testing the limits. I’ll ask the Court to notice some public filing, then describe it with my own editorializing and still no one says anything.

Maybe it’s because notice is for indisputable, verifiable facts that can’t be contested so there’s no need to say anything but still it’s awkward every single time.

EDIT: I’ve made the classic lawyer mistake of making a joke near other lawyers. So yes, I appreciate that some of you are now litigating whether “sure” constitutes a sufficiently clear ruling for preservation purposes.

But, unfortunately, that was the joke. :)

I work in legal aid. I've met some attorneys, one PD and another couple of legal aid eviction defense attorneys, who keep an extra blazer or two on hand for clients to borrow just in case.

I don't believe it would be against my org's ethic guidelines to lend a blazer just for a court hearing, but I was wondering if anyone else does/did this and has any insight to whether it is helpful?

I'm also just wondering logistically about having something for everyone to borrow, which could lead to transferring contagions or lice. Yikes.

How do you recover from a crappy hearing? Yesterday I had a hearing for my client and it did not go well - Court overruled my requests and literally rolled her eyes at me as I was speaking. I’m so upset. My client will be fine, just seems unfair and so unprofessional. Why do we have to respect the judges so much when they don’t show us the same courtesy? This was on a procedural issue that I felt should have been continued for a further hearing, but the Court refused. I am both frustrated professionally and feel a bruise to my ego as other colleagues were there watching. How do I get over this??

So I'm a PD in Indiana. We're going to be one of the last states to ever decriminalize or legalize marijuana.

For those of you who practice in states where it's legal, is there solid case law that eliminates the plain smell rule?

As a side note, there is legal hemp that smells identical to marijuana... to the point where dogs can't tell the difference. I would love to challenge a vehicle search on that basis, but I haven't had a client yet who was willing to be a guinea pig since the prosecutor here is pretty soft on marijuana cases.

Personally I've always thought that plain smell was crap. The odor of marijuana can linger in a vehicle eternally.