Opinion ID: 691313
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Jurisdictional Claim.

Text: 22 The statute pursuant to which Hernandez-Fundora was prosecuted, 18 U.S.C. 113(c), provides: 23 Whoever, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, is guilty of an assault shall be punished as follows: 24 .... 25 (c) Assault with a dangerous weapon, with intent to do bodily harm, and without just cause or excuse, by fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. 26 Id. (emphasis added). 27 The evidence on the question whether Raybrook was within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States 2 was elicited from F.B.I. agent Arthur Zarone on his direct examination in the following exchange: 28 Q. Just briefly, what are your duties as an FBI agent? 29 A. I investigate violations of federal law in our area, three counties in the Northern District. 30 Q. Does your jurisdiction include Raybrook Federal Prison, Raybrook, New York? 31 A. Yes, it does. 32 Q. Okay. Is that federal property there, the Raybrook federal property? 33 A. Yes. It's under concurrent jurisdiction; the Federal Government has a deed to the property, and both the Federal Government and State Government have concurrent jurisdiction. 34 MR. FANCIULLO: Objection to that as hearsay, your Honor. 35 THE COURT: Overruled. 36 Zarone was subsequently called as a witness on the government's rebuttal case. The following testimony and colloquy ensued on his recross-examination: 37 Q. Just a couple of questions about something you said earlier. 38 Have you ever seen a deed to Raybrook? 39 A. Yes, sir, I have. 40 Q. And that's a document that exists? 41 A. Yes, sir, it is. 42 Q. And do you have it with you? 43 A. No, sir, I don't keep it with me. 44 MR. FANCIULLO: I am going to object to the testimony on that area, you Honor, as hearsay and no foundation for it. 45 MR. YANTHIS: This is beyond rebuttal here. 46 MR. FANCIULLO: Can we approach? 47 THE COURT: Yeah. 48 (At side bar:)MR. FANCIULLO: It goes to the issue of federal jurisdiction. The only evidence is that he has seen a deed, and I say that's not good enough. 49 THE COURT: No. He testified that he knew that the premises where the event occurred was in the concurrent jurisdiction of the Federal and State Government. Now, where he got that knowledge might have been from a deed. Somebody might have told him that. It might have come from a hearsay statement. 50 But Mr. Yanthis didn't ask him what did somebody tell you about the jurisdiction. He got his knowledge from some source. I don't know where it was. 51 MR. YANTHIS: Yes. He mentioned that he had seen the deed. 52 THE COURT: Maybe he did. I don't remember. So, I am going to overrule your objection. 53 As appears from the foregoing, Hernandez-Fundora objected to Zarone's testimony on the jurisdictional issue initially on the basis that it was hearsay, subsequently reiterating that objection and adding that there was no foundation for it. On appeal, he reiterates these claims, and adds that (1) the best evidence rule was violated and (2) [t]he testimony only referred to the day of the trial, not the day of the assault. 54 We have addressed similar testimony, and similar objections, in a number of cases. In United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1058, 471 U.S. 1137, 105 S.Ct. 1772, 2679, 84 L.Ed.2d 832, 86 L.Ed.2d 697 (1985), the defendants were charged, inter alia, with bank embezzlement, bank larceny, and falsification of bank records. It was an essential element of these crimes that the victim bank be insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the FDIC). Id. at 483. 55 The only evidence provided on this issue was the testimony of a bank officer that the bank's deposits are FDIC insured. Id. We ruled that the best evidence rule, Fed.R.Evid. 1002, did not require that the relevant insurance policy be placed in evidence, because the proof required was proof of the fact of insurance and not of the contents of a writing. Id.; see also United States v. Jones, 958 F.2d 520, 521 (2d Cir.1992) (in [Sliker ], we held that oral testimony about an insurance policy was properly admitted to prove the existence of insurance, in contrast to proving the terms of the policy). So here, testimonial evidence could be used to prove the federal status of Raybrook, as distinguished from the terms of the deed establishing that status. 56 The hearsay objection to the admissibility of Zarone's testimony on this issue also does not withstand analysis. Zarone was not essentially testifying as to the substance of the out-of-court statement, see Fed.R.Evid. 801(c), represented by the deed that established concurrent federal jurisdiction over Raybrook. Rather, he was testifying to an overall conclusion that Raybrook was under concurrent jurisdiction. Cf. Sliker, 751 F.2d at 483 (testimony establishing overall conclusion of FDIC insurance). This testimony was presumably based, inter alia, upon the commonplace knowledge that a federal prison is likely to be a location where federal jurisdiction is at least concurrently exercised. Cf. Sliker, 751 F.2d at 485 (invoking  'common knowledge of the nearly universal prevalence of the banks of the United States having their deposits insured by the [FDIC]'  (quoting Cook v. United States, 320 F.2d 258, 259-60 (5th Cir.1963))). 57 Nor do we perceive on this record any reason to conclude that Zarone lacked adequate personal knowledge to testify to Raybrook's concurrent federal status. See Fed.R.Evid. 602 (establishing requirement of personal knowledge). We note also that this ground of objection was not expressed at the time Zarone's testimony on this issue was admitted. See Fed.R.Evid. 103(a)(1) (timely objection required). 58 We turn to the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence of concurrent federal jurisdiction. Having concluded that Zarone was a competent witness on this issue, and in view of his uncontradicted testimony that concurrent federal jurisdiction existed, the only remaining sufficiency issue is the claim that his testimony established only the existence of concurrent federal jurisdiction at the time of trial, rather than at the time of Hernandez-Fundora's assault upon Parris. Sliker addressed the parallel claim in that case that no evidence had been provided to establish FDIC insurance at the time of the criminal activity at issue, as distinguished from the time of trial. We responded that the Government can rely on [the bank officer's] testimony viewed in light of the principle that the subsequent existence of a condition is some evidence of its prior existence, at least when the time span is not too great and there is no suggestion of an intervening circumstance that might call its previous existence into question. Id. at 484 (citing 2 Wigmore, Evidence, Sec. 437(1) at 513-19 (Chadbourne rev.1979)). We followed Sliker on this issue in United States v. Schermerhorn, 906 F.2d 66, 69-70 (2d Cir.1990), where the crime charged was making a false statement to a federally insured bank and the evidence of FDIC insurance again consisted of trial testimony by a bank officer that the bank was insured at the time of trial. In light of Sliker and Schermerhorn, we deem the evidence in this case to be sufficient to support the existence of concurrent federal jurisdiction over Raybrook at the time of the assault by Hernandez-Fundora upon Parris. 59 Having concluded that the evidence underlying the jurisdictional element was properly admitted and was sufficient, we proceed to address Hernandez-Fundora's contention that the district court erred in removing the jurisdictional element of his offense from the jury's consideration. The court charged the jury that: 60 [T]he Government must prove the alleged assault took place within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. This simply means that the alleged assault must have occurred in any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof. I charge you now that [Raybrook] is a place that falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Therefore, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the acted [sic] alleged occurred at [Raybrook], the sixth element of the offense has been met. 61 Thus, the court removed from the jury's consideration the issue whether Raybrook was within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, but reserved for the jury the question whether the assault occurred at Raybrook. 62 This approach is consistent with prior cases in this circuit. In United States v. Jones, 480 F.2d 1135 (2d Cir.1973), the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of theft within the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 661. The theft occurred at a Veterans Administration hospital in West Haven, Connecticut. Jones, 480 F.2d at 1136. The trial court charged the jury that the hospital was within the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and that the jury should determine whether the theft occurred at the hospital. Id. at 1138. Responding to the defendant-appellant's argument that the jurisdictional issue had been improperly taken from the jury, we held that the district court properly determined this question as a matter of law and submitted to the jury the question of whether the offense was committed on land determined by the court to be within the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Id. at 1138. We concluded that the court's instruction correctly left the factual element--the locus of the crime--to the jury, while reserving the question of law--whether the federal government had accepted jurisdiction--to itself. Id. at 1139. 63 Similarly, in United States v. Cook, 922 F.2d 1026 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 941, 111 S.Ct. 2235, 114 L.Ed.2d 477 (1991), the defendant-appellant was convicted after a jury trial of use and possession of gambling devices in Indian country in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1175. Cook, 922 F.2d at 1029. The trial court had ruled from the bench that the area at issue was located in Indian country, id. at 1030, and had instructed the jury that it need only decide whether the offenses charged in the indictment [had] occurred. Id. at 1031. We concluded that the court may determine as a matter of law the existence of such jurisdiction, id. (citing Jones, 480 F.2d at 1138), and affirmed the conviction. Id. at 1037. See also United States v. Warren, 984 F.2d 325, 327 (9th Cir.1993) (existence of federal jurisdiction over a geographic area is a legal question, while locus of offense within that area is a factual question for the jury). 64 The government's brief on appeal cited Cook in support of the district court's instruction on the jurisdictional issue, and also cited two cases which addressed or invoked the provisions of Fed.R.Evid. 201. See United States v. Piggie, 622 F.2d 486, 487-88 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 863, 101 S.Ct. 169, 66 L.Ed.2d 80 (1980); United States v. Blunt, 558 F.2d 1245, 1247 (6th Cir.1977) (per curiam). Rule 201 provides in pertinent part: 65 (a) Scope of rule. This rule governs only judicial notice of adjudicative facts. 66 (b) Kinds of facts. A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. 67 .... 68 (g) Instructing jury. In a civil action or proceeding, the court shall instruct the jury to accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed. In a criminal case, the court shall instruct the jury that it may, but is not required to, accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed. 69 In his reply brief on appeal, 3 Hernandez-Fundora argues that the court's instruction on the jurisdictional issue amounts to judicial notice that Raybrook falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, but fails to satisfy the mandate of Rule 201(g) to instruct the jury that it may, but is not required to, accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed. Fed.R.Evid. 201(g). Hernandez-Fundora accordingly contends that even under the government's proposed approach, the jury instruction was deficient and requires reversal. We conclude, however, that resolution of the jurisdictional issue in this case requires the determination of legislative facts, rather than adjudicative facts within the meaning of Rule 201(a), with the result that Rule 201(g) is inapplicable. 70 Geography has long been peculiarly susceptible to judicial notice for the obvious reason that geographic locations are facts which are not generally controversial.... Piggie, 622 F.2d at 488. Thus, courts have taken judicial notice of federal jurisdiction over particular lands where the prosecution has not offered direct evidence on the issue. See United States v. Lavender, 602 F.2d 639, 641 (4th Cir.1979) (judicial notice of federal jurisdiction taken at appellate level); Government of Canal Zone v. Burjan, 596 F.2d 690, 693-95 (5th Cir.1979) (same); United States v. Hughes, 542 F.2d 246, 248 n. 1 (5th Cir.1976) (same, as to military base); United States v. Anderson, 528 F.2d 590, 591-92 (5th Cir.) (per curiam) (affirming use of judicial notice to find jurisdiction over federal prison), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 837, 97 S.Ct. 105, 50 L.Ed.2d 103 (1976); United States v. Benson, 495 F.2d 475, 481 (5th Cir.) (affirming use of judicial notice to find jurisdiction over military base), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1035, 95 S.Ct. 519, 42 L.Ed.2d 310 (1974). 71 The question presented in this case is whether, in a criminal case, the disposition of a geographical/jurisdictional issue is premised upon the determination of adjudicative facts within the meaning of Rule 201(a), thus bringing into play the procedural requirements of Rule 201(g). The confinement of Rule 201 to notice of adjudicative facts was not casually made. The pertinent advisory committee note addresses the question in some detail: 72 Subdivision (a). This is the only evidence rule on the subject of judicial notice. It deals only with judicial notice of adjudicative facts. No rule deals with judicial notice of legislative facts.... 73 The omission of any treatment of legislative facts results from fundamental differences between adjudicative facts and legislative facts. Adjudicative facts are simply the facts of the particular case. Legislative facts, on the other hand, are those which have relevant to legal reasoning and the lawmaking process, whether in the formulation of a legal principle or ruling by a judge or court or in the enactment of a legislative body. The terminology was coined by Professor Kenneth Davis in his article An Approach to Problems of Evidence in the Administrative Process, 55 Harv.L.Rev. 364, 404-407 (1942).... In addition, see the same author's Judicial Notice, 55 Colum.L.Rev. 945 (1955); Administrative Law Treatise, ch. 15 (1958); A System of Judicial Notice Based on Fairness and Convenience, in Perspectives of Law 69 (1964). 74 Fed.R.Evid. 201 advisory committee's note. 75 The Eighth Circuit applied this distinction in United States v. Gould, 536 F.2d 216 (8th Cir.1976), invoking Professor Davis' Administrative Law Treatise and, in reviewing convictions for conspiracy to import and importation of cocaine, stating that: 76 The fact that cocaine hydrochloride is a derivative of coca leaves is a universal fact that is unrelated to the activities of the parties to this litigation. There was no preemption of the jury function to determine what substance was actually seized from Ms. Kenworthy at the Miami airport. The jury was instructed that, if it found that the confiscated substance was cocaine hydrochloride, the applicable law classified the substance as a schedule II controlled substance. 77 It is clear to us that the District Court took judicial notice of a legislative, rather than an adjudicative, fact in the present case and rule 201(g) is inapplicable. The District Court was not obligated to inform the jury that it could disregard the judicially noticed fact. 78 536 F.2d at 220-21; see also United States v. Coffman, 638 F.2d 192, 914-95 (10th Cir.1980) (quoting and following Gould, 536 F.2d at 219-21), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 917, 101 S.Ct. 1995, 68 L.Ed.2d 309 (1981). 79 The Fifth Circuit followed Gould in a case that bears directly upon the issue presented on this appeal. In United States v. Bowers, 660 F.2d 527 (5th Cir. Unit B Sept. 1981) (per curiam), the court affirmed a conviction for cruelty to a child in violation of a Georgia statute pursuant to the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 13, which applies local criminal law in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. In doing so, the court rejected an argument by the defendant-appellant premised upon Rule 201(g), as follows: 80 Appellant asserts that the court committed reversible error in taking judicial notice that Fort Benning, Georgia, is on land which is property of the United States and is under the jurisdiction of [the] United States. Record, vol. 2, at 173, 181. The alleged vice in this instruction is the court's failure to inform the jurors that they were not bound to accept the noticed fact. Appellant cites Fed.R.Evid. 201(g), which states: 81 123 C Street, the fact that the address is within the city is not an adjudicative fact. 82 II Kenneth Culp Davis & Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Administrative Law Treatise Sec. 10.6, at 155 (3d ed. 1994) (Davis & Pierce). 83 These authorities clarify that while courts may take judicial notice of either legislative or adjudicative facts, only notice of the latter is subject to the strictures of Rule 201. Although Rule 201 is frequently (albeit erroneously) cited in cases that involve judicial notice of legislative facts, see II Davis & Pierce's Sec. 10.6, at 155, we recognize the importance of this distinction and its clear basis in Rule 201(a) and the advisory note thereon, as explicated in Gould and Bowers. We therefore conclude that the jurisdictional issue in this case is premised upon a determination of legislative, rather than adjudicative, facts to which Rule 201, including Rule 201(g), is inapplicable. 84 Following our decisions in Jones and Cook, we accordingly rule that the district court was entitled to determine that Raybrook falls within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and to remove that issue from consideration by the jury. As in Jones and Cook, any factual issues whose resolution is necessary to a determination of such a geographical/jurisdictional issue would invoke judicial notice of legislative facts to which Rule 201 is inapplicable; i.e., in the language of the advisory committee's note to Rule 201(a), facts which have relevance to legal reasoning ... in the formulation of a legal principle or ruling by a judge or court. 85