What a Prima Facie Case Really Means and Why It’s a Defendant’s First Line of Defense

“Prima facie case” may sound intimidating, but it’s one of the simplest and most powerful legal concepts. Learn how proving — or attacking — a prima facie case shapes lawsuits and exam analysis

When you start law school, you’ll hear Latin phrases tossed around like they’re part of some secret code. One of the first is prima facie case. It sounds intimidating, but the idea is straightforward, and one of the most important, foundational concepts you’ll learn.

The Latin phrase prima facie means “on its face.” Before a case ever reaches the jury, the judge must decide: “Has the plaintiff (in a civil case) or the State (in a criminal case) presented enough facts for a reasonable jury to find every element satisfied?”

If the answer is no, the case must end. The judge must dismiss it as a matter of law. Allowing it to continue without proof on each element would waste time and, worse, risk a jury acting unreasonably by reaching a verdict on shaky grounds. That’s what lawyers mean when they say the plaintiff or State “failed to make a prima facie case.” So, a prima facie case does two things:

1. It establishes whether a plaintiff has the right to relief under the law.
2. It gives the defendant a powerful way to avoid all liability by showing the plaintiff never established “on its face” that it was entitled to relief under the law.

Why the Prima Facie Case Matters for Defendants

In law school, professors will often focus on the plaintiff’s job: proving the prima facie case. You’ll likely assume the role of plaintiff’s attorney and work to line up each element with supporting facts.

But here’s the flip side: as a defense lawyer, your strongest move is often showing how the plaintiff cannot prove one or more of those elements.

Why? Because if the plaintiff (or State in criminal cases) can’t support every element, the defendant wins without calling a single witness, presenting evidence, or raising any other defense. The case stops entirely, the defendant avoids liability, and everyone goes home.

It’s like the game ends at halftime because the team that filed the lawsuit never scored enough points to keep playing.

That’s why attacking the prima facie case is the defendant’s strongest “defense.” It prevents the question of liability from ever reaching the jury.

Why Other, Affirmative Defenses Always Come Second

You’ll study plenty of defenses in 1L year—like self-defense (criminal law), assumption of risk (torts), and impossibility (contracts). Just like causes of action asserted by plaintiffs, these defenses are affirmatively raised by defendants, and each has its own elements that must be proven to succeed.

As a 1L reading a fact pattern that your professor purposely drafted to contain a bunch of “pro-defendant” facts that scream affirmative defenses, it’s tempting to jump straight to addressing these whenever analyzing a defendant’s chance of avoiding liability. But remember: these affirmative defenses only matter after the plaintiff has cleared its prima facie hurdle.

If the plaintiff never clears that hurdle, affirmative defenses never have a chance to enter the picture.

Key Takeaway for 1Ls

The defendant’s strongest “defense” isn’t really a defense at all; it’s showing the plaintiff or State failed to establish its prima facie case in the first place.

When you’re working through hypos, train yourself to ask two questions in order:

1. Prima facie case : Did the plaintiff/State present enough evidence on every element?.
2. Prima facie case : If yes, what defenses could the defendant raise to defeat liability?

Get that order right, and you won’t just perform better on exams, you’ll also start to see the deeper, logical order of how the law works.

And don’t forget Themis Law School Essentials™ is here to help. Get 1L outlines, practice questions, final exam tips, and more for all of your required 1L courses. Plus it’s free!