宪法性权利对司法认知的束缚：司法认知正当性质疑与正义表达

对于司法认知的效力存在塞耶-威格莫尔理论与摩根-麦考密克理论两种不同的观点。由于司法认知效力问题与被告人由陪审团审判的宪法性权利密切相关，指示陪审团接受法官对结论性事实作出的司法认知可能意味着对犯罪构成直接做出裁定。作出司法认知是否会侵犯刑事被告人的宪法性权利存在着广泛的争议。这种争议不仅在立法过程中存在重大分歧，在司法实践中也莫衷一是。《联邦证据规则》起草者在民事案件中采用摩根-麦考密克理论，但在刑事案件中塞耶一威格莫尔理论却促成了司法认知与宪法性权利的调和。

Query on the Constitutionality of Judicial Notice

There are two theories, Thayer-Wigmore and Morgan-McCormick theories, about the effect of judicial notice. As the effect of judicial notice has a closed relationship with the constitutional right of the accused, instructing the jury that they are bound by the court＇ s decision to take judicial notice of a consequential fact amounts to directing a verdict on that element of the crime, such notice implicates the defendant＇ s right to trial by jury. It has evoked much controversy about the constitutionality of taking judicial notice against a criminal defendant. The controversy exists in legislative course and practice. The writers of Federal Rules of Evidence favor the Morgan-McCormick theory in civil cases. However, in criminal cases the Thayer-Wigmore theo- ry promote the reconciliation between judicial notice and constitutional right.