Which of the following is NOT a government defense for "tainted" evidence?

The correct choice, which indicates the option that is NOT a government defense for "tainted" evidence, is judicial notice.

In the context of legal proceedings, "tainted" evidence typically refers to evidence obtained in violation of a suspect's constitutional rights, most commonly associated with the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. To address the admissibility of such evidence, the government can invoke various defenses.

The independent source doctrine allows the admission of evidence that was obtained through a source that is independent from the initial tainted evidence. The inevitable discovery rule permits the admission of tainted evidence if the government can demonstrate that the evidence would have been discovered through lawful means regardless of the illegal action. The attenuation doctrine allows for the admission of evidence if there is a significant break in the causal chain between the illegal action and the evidence obtained, thus mitigating the taint.

Judicial notice, on the other hand, is a procedural tool where a court recognizes a fact that is universally acknowledged or can be verified without needing evidence. It does not serve as a defense for tainted evidence since it does not pertain to how evidence was obtained or its admissibility in the face of constitutional violations.

This distinction clarifies why judicial notice does not belong in