20 F.4th 407
8th Cir.2021Background
- Defendant Earl F. Love, while serving a federal prison sentence at the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, MO, attacked another inmate causing serious bodily injury; charged under 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6).
- The government sought judicial notice at trial that the Center lies within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; Love argued the Sixth Amendment required the jury to decide that jurisdictional element.
- At trial three Center employees testified about the facility’s "federal nature," and the district court—after stating it had conducted historical research—took judicial notice that the land was federally acquired before 1940, instructed the jury that the jurisdictional element was satisfied if the assault occurred there, and denied acquittal motions.
- Love appealed, arguing the court deprived him of his right to have a jury decide the jurisdictional element and that the court improperly relied on materials outside the trial record.
- The Eighth Circuit held that whether a place is within federal (special maritime and territorial) jurisdiction is a question of law turning on legislative facts, which a court may judicially notice and need not submit to a jury; the court took judicial notice on appeal of a 1931 deed conveying the land to the United States and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether special maritime and territorial jurisdiction over a place is a question for the jury or the court | Love: Sixth Amendment requires jury to decide the jurisdictional element | Court/Govt: Jurisdictional status is a legal question for the court | Court: It is a question of law based on legislative facts; court may decide and judicially notice it |
| Whether judicially noticed legislative facts must be presented to the jury | Love: Judicial notice here deprived jury of its role; materials reviewed outside the record | Court/Govt: Legislative facts need not be submitted; Rule 201 does not extend to legislative facts | Court: Judicial notice of legislative facts is permissible and need not be submitted to jury |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by relying on materials not identified at trial | Love: Court improperly reviewed outside materials without identifying them | Court/Govt: Appellate plain-error review; appellate court may take judicial notice using public records submitted on appeal | Court: Even if trial process imperfect, appellate court takes judicial notice of deed and affirms; no reversible error |
| Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to prove the jurisdictional element beyond a reasonable doubt | Love: Testimony from three employees was insufficient | Court/Govt: Judicial notice of jurisdiction renders sufficiency challenge unnecessary | Court: Declined to decide sufficiency because judicial notice on appeal resolved the issue |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hernandez-Fundora, 58 F.3d 802 (2d Cir. 1995) (holds special maritime and territorial jurisdiction is a legal question involving legislative facts)
- United States v. Davis, 726 F.3d 357 (2d Cir. 2013) (applies Hernandez-Fundora and affirms appellate judicial notice of federal jurisdiction)
- United States v. Stands, 105 F.3d 1565 (8th Cir. 1997) (court decides whether land is in Indian country; jury decides whether crime occurred there)
- United States v. Gould, 536 F.2d 216 (8th Cir. 1976) (distinguishes legislative facts from adjudicative facts)
- United States v. Lopez, 880 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. 2018) (district court may judicially notice legislative facts and need not tell jury it may disregard them)
- United States v. Redstone, 488 F.2d 300 (8th Cir. 1973) (presumption that land acquired before 1940 was accepted by federal government absent contrary evidence)
- Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245 (1963) (Enclave Clause requires state consent and federal acceptance for federal jurisdiction over land)
- Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312 (1943) (federal acceptance is required for federal jurisdiction over acquired land)
- United States v. Eagleboy, 200 F.3d 1137 (8th Cir. 1999) (public records may be cited for the first time on appeal)