The Logic of Determination and Practical Path of Facts Knownto All

Abstract

As a typical category of judicially noticed facts, the “facts known to all” provision is confronted with prominent legislative and theoretical dilemmas, such as inconsistent legislative expressions and the absence of definite criteria for identifying its constituent elements. Further analysis based on judicial big data demonstrates that, in practical application, this rule is plagued by excessive judicial subjectivity and inadequate reasoning in judicial decisions. Accordingly, the “facts known to all” provision requires interpretative clarification of its normative significance. Following such interpretation, the identification of its specific elements shall adhere to the logical sequence: cognitive subject → cognitive object (relativity + objective authenticity) → cognitive degree. Legislatively, it is essential to establish a unified rebuttable rule grounded in sufficient contrary evidence, and the scope of proof exemption in criminal proceedings should be uniformly stipulated by the Supreme People’s Court. In judicial practice, courts shall conduct examination and determination in strict accordance with the above analytical logic, and enhance reasoning in judicial documents to prevent subjective arbitrariness.