| Holmes v. South Carolina | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 22, 2006 Decided May 1, 2006 | |
| Full case name | Bobby Lee Holmes v. South Carolina |
| Docket no. | 04-1327 |
| Citations | 547 U.S. 319 (more) 126 S. Ct. 1727; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 3454; 74 U.S.L.W. 4221 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Defendant convicted, York County Circuit Court, 1993; affirmed, 464 S.E.2d 334 (S.C. 1995); rehearing denied, S.C., June 10, 1996; cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1248 (1996); new trial granted; defendant convicted, York County Circuit Court; affirmed, 605 S.E.2d 19 (S.C. 2004); cert. granted in part, 126 S. Ct. 34 (2005) |
| Holding | |
| A State could not exclude evidence presented by a criminal defendant that a third party committed the crime simply because the prosecution had a strong case. South Carolina Supreme Court vacated and remanded. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Alito, joined by unanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV | |
Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the right of a criminal defendant to present evidence that a third party instead committed the crime. The Court vacated the rape and murder conviction in South Carolina of a man who had been denied the opportunity to present evidence of a third party's guilt, because the trial court believed the prosecutor's forensic evidence was too strong for the defendant's evidence to raise an inference of innocence. The Court ruled unanimously that this exclusion violated the right of a defendant to have a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense, because the strength of a prosecutor's case had no logical relationship to whether a defendant's evidence was too weak to be admissible.
The opinion was delivered by Justice Samuel Alito, and was his first opinion as a member of the Court following his confirmation on January 31, 2006. This follows a Supreme Court tradition that the first written opinion of a new justice reflect a unanimous decision. Also, this case had marked the last time in ten years that Clarence Thomas had asked a question during oral argument.[1] This period of silence lasted until shortly after the death of Antonin Scalia, with the oral argument during Voisine v. United States.[2][3]
- ^ Liptak, Adam "It’s Been 10 Years. Would Clarence Thomas Like to Add Anything?", The New York Times, February 1, 2016, accessed February 2, 2016
- ^ "Vosine v. United States" (PDF). supremecourt.gov. February 29, 2016. Retrieved February 29, 2016.
- ^ Garrett Epps (February 29, 2016). "Politics: Clarence Thomas Breaks His Silence". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on September 3, 2019. Retrieved October 18, 2019.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search