## Facts

- Jesús Bello and Domingo Santana-Rosa were inmates at MDC–Guaynabo in Puerto Rico.
- Bello worked in food service and refused Santana a second serving; Santana threatened Bello and another inmate later warned Bello of a planned attack.
- Bello did not report the threat to prison authorities, fearing being labeled a “snitch.”
- Two days later, in the recreation yard, Bello armed himself with part of a broom and struck Santana in the head, causing serious bodily injury.
- Bello admitted the assault but claimed he acted out of fear of an imminent attack.
- At trial for assault resulting in serious bodily injury under 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6), the district court took judicial notice (supported by official maps) that MDC–Guaynabo is within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States and instructed the jury it could reject that fact.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court improperly took judicial notice of the jurisdictional element and instructed the jury on that fact.
2. Whether the district court erred by refusing jury instructions on self-defense and duress, and by answering a jury question about self-defense outside counsel’s presence.
3. Whether the sentencing court wrongly believed it lacked authority to grant a downward departure for coercion/duress.
4. Whether the court erred in denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.

## Decision

- Affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- Held judicial notice of the jurisdictional fact was proper under Fed. R. Evid. 201 and did not violate the jury-trial right because the instruction made the noticed fact nonbinding.
- Held the evidence did not justify self-defense or duress instructions; the threat was not imminent at the time of the assault and lawful alternatives existed.
- Treated the judge’s answer to the jury outside counsel’s presence as procedural error but harmless because self-defense was unavailable on the facts.
- Held the sentencing court understood its departure authority but found the facts did not warrant a coercion/duress departure; the refusal to depart was not reviewable absent legal error.
- Upheld denial of acceptance-of-responsibility reduction because asserting self-defense is inconsistent with accepting guilt.

## Legal Principles

- A court may take judicial notice of an adjudicative jurisdictional fact if it is readily verifiable from reliable sources; in a criminal case, the jury must be instructed that it may reject the noticed fact.
- A defendant is entitled to a requested defense instruction only if sufficient evidence would allow a rational jury to find for the defendant on that defense.
- Self-defense and duress require an imminent threat and no reasonable lawful alternative; preemptive violence based on a non-immediate threat does not satisfy these requirements.
- A defendant who proceeds to trial asserting self-defense generally does not qualify for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 because the claim denies an essential factual element of guilt.
- A discretionary refusal to depart downward is typically unreviewable on appeal absent a legal misunderstanding of departure authority.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit affirmed Bello’s conviction and sentence, holding that nonbinding judicial notice properly established the federal-jurisdiction element, the record did not support self-defense or duress instructions, and the sentencing court neither misapprehended its departure authority nor clearly erred in denying an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.


United States v. Bello, 194 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 1999)