List three (3) types of substitutes for evidence and explain their use in court. Why are substitutes for evidence used in the courtroom?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Three types of substitutes for evidence are stipulations, judicial notice, and presumptions. They are used at trial to save court time and make the trial more efficient.
A stipulation results from an agreement between both sides that a given fact (or set of facts) exist and indicate that the attorneys are willing to allow the jurors to assume that they exist without introducing evidence about them during trial. The stipulation is reduced to writing and given to the judge if the agreement is made before trial. If the agreement is made during trial, the attorneys inform the judge orally that they have a stipulation and the details of the stipulation are read into the trial record. In either case, the jurors are told that they must accept the fact as true.
Judicial notice involves statutory procedures that allow judges to take notice of commonly known facts. The code sets out what facts are subject to judicial notice; it is not based on the personal knowledge of the judge. One of the attorneys will ask the judge to take judicial notice of a fact. The attorney may be required to provide reference books that establish the fact. Opposing counsel can argue against judicial notice being taken. The judge can also decide to take judicial notice even though the attorneys did not request it. Once the fact is judicially noticed, the jurors will be instructed that they must accept the fact as true.
Presumptions are inferences that the jurors are required by law to make. They may be in a statute or derived from common law. The side that wants to use a presumption must prove the basic fact. Opposing counsel can attempt to disprove the basic fact. If a rebuttable presumption is used, the opposing side may also attempt to prove that the presumed fact.