We're rather appropriating the term “judicial notice” for the kind of concept we're suggesting, because what we're suggesting would not fit what the courts now understand to be the scope of judicial notice, those things that a court can simply take notice of without evidence being presented before the court. It has to be of the very obvious category that Mr. LeBlanc was referring to.
What we're talking about is simply a statutory provision that would allow a judge to take the fact that, you know, given that the existence of a particular criminal organization was proved in one case, and the facts seen in the case before him or her seemed to be the same in the incident case...and make a presumption based on the finding in the other court.
Simply the normal rules call for this: if it's a material fact, then the charge before the court has to be proven before that court. So that would be an exception to that. It is not something that a judge could do, based on the common law as it exists at the moment.