How are judicially noticed facts treated in criminal cases?

Judicially noticed facts are those that are accepted by the court as true without the need for evidence to support them. In criminal cases, the way the jury interacts with these facts is crucial. The correct approach is that the jury may accept them as conclusive or choose not to rely on them. This allowance recognizes the jury's role in evaluating evidence and reaching a verdict.

For instance, if a court has judicially noticed that a certain fact is a common knowledge fact – such as the fact that the sun rises in the east – the jury is not bound to treat that fact as conclusive. Instead, they have the discretion to consider it within the broader context of the evidence they have reviewed during the trial.

This flexibility respects the jury's position in weighing various pieces of evidence and ensures that judicial notice does not undermine their analytic role in determining the facts of the case. The other options do not accurately reflect this balance of power between judicial notice and jury evaluation.