Substitutes for evidence are other evidences such as facts that the jury uses instead of having the contrasting sides producing actual evidences for the case. There are only three substitutes of evidence that are commonly used in court. These include judicial notice, presumptions and stipulations (Hails, 2004, p. 61).
Judicial notice can be described as a procedure in which the judge issues notice for the jury to conclude, during a trial, that certain facts exist with or without a request from the attorney (Hails, 2004, p. 62). In such a case, it is presumed that the fact is readily demonstrable or well known by the society that proving it formally becomes unnecessary. Judicial notice is however not used when the two sides have agreed to enter into stipulations (Hails, 2004, p. 63).Presumptions on the other hand are defined as those facts which are automatically confirmed using the proofs of other facts (Bocchino & Sonenshein, 2006, p. 15). Presumptions are not considered as evidences but the jury can assume the reality of the supposed facts if the adversary to the presumptions has no enough evidence to disprove the presumptions. Presumptions are usually used to avoid liabilities i.e. people who rely on this substitute for evidence must eradicate differing possibilities (Robillard, Wilson & Brown, 2009, p. 80).
The last substitute for evidence is stipulations. Stipulations are described as agreements made between the contrasting attorneys to acknowledge that some facts concerning the case exist (Hails, 2004, p. 61). These agreements can be made either before or during the trial. Regardless of which time the stipulations reach the court, they usually have the same weight as any other evidence. Stipulations are used for various purposes some of which include; when the defense side is convinced that the defendant side can prove the involved facts, when the facts are feared to result to injustice against the defendant, or when the case is based on very minor points that the two sides concur that proving these points will be time consuming (Hails, 2004, p. 62).
Substitutes for evidence are commonly used in the courtroom when the trial is to be expedited and/or when court wants to defend strong societal policies. A trial is expedited if there is no enough time to carefully look into the small details that are involved in the case. On the other hand, a court may be determined to use substitutes of evidence for the interest of the society so as to protect the norms and values that the society strongly holds (Hails, 2004, p. 67).