Law School Case Brief
Holmes v. South Carolina - 547 U.S. 319, 126 S. Ct. 1727 (2006)
State and federal rule-makers have broad latitude under the U.S. Constitution to establish rules excluding evidence from criminal trials. Whether rooted directly in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or in the Compulsory Process or Confrontation clauses of the Sixth Amendment, the U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. This guarantee is violated by evidence rules that infringe upon a weighty interest of the accused and are arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve.
At a murder trial in a South Carolina court, the prosecution relied heavily on various items of forensic evidence. The defendant sought to introduce evidence that another person had committed the murder. The trial court, in excluding this proffered evidence, cited a Supreme Court of South Carolina holding that evidence of third-party guilt was inadmissible if such evidence merely cast a bare suspicion or raised a conjectural inference as to another's guilt. The defendant was convicted and received a death sentence. In affirming on appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court applied a rule to the effect that where there was strong evidence of a defendant's guilt, especially where there was strong forensic evidence, the defendant's proffered evidence about a third party's alleged guilt did not raise a reasonable inference as to the defendant's own innocence.
Did South Carolina Supreme Court’s rule as to evidence of third-party guilt violate the defendant's federal constitutional right to have a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense?
The Court held that the defendant's federal constitutional right to have a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense was violated by the South Carolina Supreme Court's rule as to evidence of third-party guilt. According to the Court, under the rule applied by the South Carolina Supreme Court, the trial judge did not focus on the probative value or the potential adverse effects of admitting the defense evidence of third-party guilt. Instead, the critical inquiry concerned the strength of the prosecution's case; if the prosecution's case was strong enough, the evidence of third-party guilt was excluded even if that evidence, if viewed independently, would have had great probative value and even if it would not have posed an undue risk of harassment, prejudice, or confusion of the issues. Furthermore, the rule seemed to call for little, if any, examination of the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses or the reliability of its evidence. The Court held that the rule did not rationally serve the end that the Gregory rule was designed to promote, i.e., to focus the trial on the central issues by excluding evidence that had only a very weak logical connection to the central issues. Nor had the State identified any other legitimate end that the rule served.
Access the full text case
Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class