uilt of intent to harm. The defendants, however, claimed that the burning of a cross does not necessarily imply a threat, but was used to symbolize group unity. One of the reasons the Supreme Court struck down the cross burning statute was that this prima facie provision was simply too broad. The Court made it necessary that the prosecution prove the intention behind the act was truly to intimidate a person or group. Justice Scalia voted partially in favor of the unconstitutionality of the law, but disagreed with striking down the prima facie provision. How has the use of prima facie evidence been defined and utilized, and is it relevant to the case at hand?
             Justice Scalia, in his partially dissenting opinion on the case, goes into depth on the uses of prima facie in the history of Virginia and how it is typically identified. Babbitt v Miller 192 Va. 372 (1951) determined, according to Virginia law, that prima facie evidence is evidence that is enough to assume a fact until refuted. This meant tha
             ...