Fifth, according to Haack, this is wrong in Bayesian theory. What matters is not the strength of the investigator`s own faith. Rather, the standard of proof should be understood in terms of what the investigator may reasonably believe in light of the evidence presented, and the extent to which the belief is justified by the evidence. The evidence is legally sufficient if it substantiates the factual allegation complained of to the extent prescribed by law. Whether a factual allegation is supported by the evidence depends on the strength with which the evidence supports the allegation, the independence with which the evidence is obtained, and the amount of relevant evidence available to the investigator (i.e., the completeness of the evidence – see section 3.3 below for a more detailed explanation). Haack is against identifying mandate notes with mathematical probabilities. Mandate notes do not correspond to the axioms of standard probability theory. For example, if the evidence is weak, neither p nor non-p can be justified; In contrast, the probability of p and the probability of non-P must total 1. If the probability of p and the probability of q are both less than 1, the probability of p and q, which is the product of the probability of p and the probability of q, is less than the probability of both. On the other hand, the degree of the mandate for the connection of p and q may be higher than the mandate for both.  (Cf. Haack 2004, 2008a,b, 2012, 2014 on the legal application of their general theory of epistemology.
On his general theory of epistemology, see Haack 1993: chap. 4; Haack 2009: Kap. 4; Haack 2003: Kap. 3.) Prima facie evidence is evidence that is not conclusive evidence of a fact, but tends to support or prove that fact. Generally, a prima facie case is presumed to establish a fact, unless other evidence proves otherwise. So it`s always helpful to keep in mind the facts you want to prove or refute in court. Therefore, you must carefully prepare an evidence grid and process booklet (see below). They are indispensable and help you organize and analyze your case, make a good impression and stay focused during combat and high tension on the court when you have to stand on your rope no matter what your opponent is trying to do, except in very rare cases. As a general rule, you should follow your evidence grid in the trial and never allow your opponent to engage in unnecessary and confusing controversies over irrelevant unequivocals. Sometimes litigants engage in endless discussions about minor facts that have little impact on key issues.
The best approach is to answer the most important points thoroughly and not as much as possible, support them with your other necessary points, discredit the rebuttal points as much as possible, and keep returning to your most important and necessary points without over-dealing them. Everything else is noise. You should never try to refute a point that your opponent made just because he did. The self-authentication rule was adopted to distract the objection of the experienced and intelligent litigator. «Objection, Your Honour, this document contains no proof of authenticity or reliability.» Stunned, the newcomer has this silent «Oh, my God!» -Moment. Section 902 alleviates your concerns. The documents listed in Rule 902 do not require external proof of authenticity to be admissible. Check this list if you have a government document or a public document. It will likely be eligible and give you a concise answer to the smart veteran. Some legal experts, including Lawrence Friedman, a legal historian at Stanford, have argued that the complexity of U.S. law of evidence stems from two factors: (1) the right of U.S. defendants to ask a jury to make findings of fact in virtually all criminal cases, as well as in many civil cases; and (2) the broad consensus that strict restrictions on the admissibility of evidence are necessary to prevent an unformed jury from being influenced by irrelevant distractions.
 In the words of Professor Friedman: «A trained judge would not need all these rules; And indeed, in systems that do not have a jury, the law of evidence is short, soft and clear.  Friedman`s views, however, are characteristic of an earlier generation of jurists. The majority of people now reject the once popular thesis that the introduction of a jury trial is the main reason for the existence of rules of evidence, even in countries such as the United States and Australia; They argue that other variables are at work.  Your test book. Once you`ve filled out your evidence grid, you should put your trial notebook inside, which in turn should be so thorough and thorough that «a monkey could pick it up, go into the courtroom and hear the case.» (The quote belongs to one of my favorite colleagues.) The basic idea is as follows. During the trial, you will question potential jurors, choose a jury, present them with your opening statement, hear witnesses and try to have exhibits admitted so that you can use them in your closing arguments, sometimes oppose your opponent`s evidence, present the instructions and verdicts proposed to the jury in court, Perhaps reject some of those offered by your opponent. Watch the judge give his final instructions to the jury and finally make your closing statement to the jury.