According to almost unanimous opinion, the presumption of evidence commonly used in civil and administrative proceedings does not apply in criminal proceedings. A "full proof" is required for a criminal conviction. However, upon closer examination of this little-discussed and seemingly self-evident assumption, one quickly encounters inconsistencies. In practice, evidence questions in criminal proceedings are handled in a manner strikingly similar to the presumption of evidence, as demonstrated by the "leather spray case" in the context of general causality. This work presents the structure and doctrinal explanatory attempts of the presumption of evidence, starting from civil law. It highlights possible areas of application for the presumption of evidence in criminal proceedings, particularly in determining causality and driving ability, a so-called disposition predicate.