Holmes v South Carolina Essay

Facts Holmes was charged with first degree murder, first degree burglary and robbery in connection with an incident involving an 86 year old woman, bloody shame Stewart. Holmes was overly charged for the rape and murder of Stewart. At the trial speak to, Holmes was convicted by the South Carolina Supreme dally. The coupled States Supreme Court denied certiorari. The petiti iodiner had appealed and the court granted a upstart trail.During the new trial the quest introduced new forensic show up including palm prints and blood that was found at the snapshot of the crime. At the new trial, the petitioner also sought to introduce proofread of a nonher man named Jimmy McCaw White. The court relegated the third party attest of wrong-doing because the grounds of the evidence were not admissible. The evidenced only affect that the third party and did not exclude the defendant. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari IssueIs evidence of a third partys guilt admissibl e if it only implicates the third party and does not exculpate the defendant?Rule and Rationale Yes. Under the Constitution of the United States, a defendant in a criminal subject area has to be given the fortune to lay a complete defense. The defendant also has the right and opportunity to present evidence of innocence, and only the evidence of guilt of a third party. Excluding evidence and only hearing the prosecutions evidence in the case did not give the court the right to make a conclusion based on the evidence at hand. The evidence against the prosecution supported that the defendant was guilty but did not mechanically exclude the evidence of the third party as weak. Holmes was entitled to introduce the evidence of Whites guilt. The exclusion of that evidence violated Holmess right to have the opportunity to present a complete defense.Standard Relied On State v. Gay, 541 S.E.2d 541, 545 (S.C. 2001). The case gave clear meaning by bringing to light that the strength of one p artys evidence has no logical conclusion that deal be reached regarding the strength of the contrary evidence from the other side to model doubt. The rule from Gay was arbitrary and violated a criminal defendants right to have a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defenseCase Signifi lowlifece The case refined the Constitutional validity of rules of admission for third party guilt evidence. undecomposed because the evidence against the prosecution supported the defendants guilt, this did not automatically exclude the third partys evidence. Additionally, no logical conclusions can be made based on contrary evidence that physical body doubt on the defendant.