Prop 8 trial question - whats judicial notice as used here?

[FreeState]

I followed the trial both on the live blogs and the official transcripts. It was fascinating to me but Im stumped as to what this means... Im sure its something obvious that Im not getting but figured someone here would know:)


On the last day of Mr. Blankenhorn's testimony this exchanged took place:

This is on page 2917 of the official transcript here: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filings/hearing-transcripts/perry-trial-day-12-transcript/

Q. So you have not seen this before?
A. To the best of my knowledge, I have not.

Q. Do you know either of these authors?
A. No, sir.

Q. So you're not familiar with either of these two authors or their work?
A. I can't say that I've never read anything by them. But sitting here right now, they are not -- those names are not familiar to me.

MR. BOIES: Your Honor, we would ask you take judicial notice of Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2898.

THE COURT: Very well.

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, we have no objection to the request made by Mr. Boies. I would note, this is a document we haven't seen until, I think, this morning. But we have no objection to you taking judicial notice of it.

THE COURT: Fine.

What does judicial notice mean here?

By the way here is is an online copy of Exhibit 2898, Same-Sex Marriage and Negative Externalities, Laura Langbein Mark A. Yost ;http://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v90y2009i2p292-308.html

[Cherchez la Femme]

1. It's common knowledge

An irrefutable, evidentiary fact that is well-known by the 'wo/man on the street' and brought to the judge's attention; i.e. something proven, already commonly known, that doesn't have to take up court time to prove its veracity.

See http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Judicial+Notice. There's more there.

"A doctrine of evidence applied by a court that allows the court to recognize and accept the existence of a particular fact commonly known by persons of average intelligence without establishing its existence by admitting evidence in a civil or criminal action."


Isn't the entire transcript fascinating? I'm getting SO much more out of taking the time to read them all than just tweets or abridged web posts.

Boies is simply amazing. Our side is very lucky, I must say; but I hold no hope if this case (I don't see how it can't be won) is brought before the Supremes on appeal. The evil, activist 5 will surely come up with something, they've already proved their bias by blocking live feed inside the courtroom.

Y'know, 9 Supreme Court Justices is not a hard & fast rule, historically it has varied -- there have been more (and less) on that bench.



but one would need a President with cahones to put forward more justices,
& that we don't have. Heck, he didn't even get rid of the 'Bushie US Attorneys (USA's)', as was his and every incoming president's right, for fear of (fraudulent) criticism from the wingnuts!
As a result we have the son of a Bushie USA (nut, fall, tree) brazenly committing felonies in NOLA, and that's just one, that's just a start.

[FreeState]

3. Thanks...

So Im assuming in this case they were asking the court to stipulate that the report is common knowledge and true. (I don't have access beyond the abstract)

Heres the abstract: "Conventional theory regarding externalities and personal choices implies that in the absence of negative externalities, there is no economic rationale for government to regulate or ban those choices. We evaluate whether legally recognizing (or prohibiting) same-sex marriage has any adverse impact on societal outcomes specifically related to "traditional family values." Copyright (c) 2009 by the Southwestern Social Science Association."

Lets hope the judge agrees:) (My reading is that the report says Marriage Equality wont hurt anyone)

Im loving the transcripts too. I followed it a lot on Prop8tracker and he tended to give a little more info than the transcrips give, so its nice to read them and see what is actually going to be seen by the courts in an appeal.

I think it looks good as far as the case - the Supreme Court is another issue - but in my non lawyer opinion I think it will be overturned and that overturning will be upheld by the 9th circuit and then who knows.

[Ms. Toad]

2. Normally facts must be proven,

and documents authenticated by the person promoting them. If there is no real controversy about the veracity of a fact, or the authenticity of a document, the court may dispense with the requirement to prove or authenticate it. It is then treated as just as valid as if it had come in the usual way.