Can judges appropriately conduct their own, independent Internet research as part of a beyond-the-record “judicial fact-finding” effort? Should they be permitted to do so in order to better decide motions, cases and appeals before them? Is it proper for them to try to hunt down germane facts from, let’s say, “highly reputable” websites or other Internet sources, or must judges render decisions based only on the record and showings made by the parties? Can judges properly “supplement” the facts before them from Internet sources as a form of assistance to decision-making?
The foregoing questions are a mite “loaded” since rules of evidence for many years have allowed judges to take “judicial notice” of so-called “adjudicative facts.” Thus, Federal Rule of Evidence 201, for example, allows a judge to “judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute” because it either is “generally known” or can be “accurately and readily determined” from sources “whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” And the court can take such judicial notice on its own. The Advisory Committee’s Note to Federal Evidence Rule 201(b) says that “adjudicative facts” are facts that “relate to the parties,” such as, “who did what, where, when, how, and with what motive or intent.” Importantly, however, it must be the type of fact that is “not subject to reasonable dispute.”
