- 27 -
Smith argues that the evidence was insufficient to
show that he acted willfully “with specific intent to
defraud the government in the enforcement of its tax
laws.” Salerno, 902 F.2d at 1432. While there is
nothing “inherently unlawful with an UBO,” and the
government told the jury during closing argument to
assume UBOs are “legitimate,” the government provided
ample evidence that Smith gave advice to unlawfully use
UBOs to file false or fraudulent tax returns (or not to
file at all). [United States v. Smith, 424 F.3d 992,
1010 (9th Cir. 2005); boldface added.]
Fed. R. Evid. 201 provides in relevant part:
Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts
(a) Scope of rule. This rule governs only
judicial notice of adjudicative facts.
(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.
Although the rule does not expressly define “adjudicative facts”,
the Advisory Committee Notes accompanying the rule explains that
they are:
those which relate to the parties, or more fully: When
a court or an agency finds facts concerning the
immediate parties--who did what, where, when, how, and
with what motive or intent--the court or agency is
performing an adjudicative function, and the facts are
conveniently called adjudicative facts. [Advisory
Committee’s Note, 56 F.R.D. 183, 204; internal
quotations omitted.]
See also United States v. Amado-Nunez, 357 F.3d 119, 121 (1st
Cir. 2004) (defining adjudicative facts as “facts about the
parties or events involved in the case”).
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011