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 class old woman, Mary Stewart. Holmes was also charged for the rape and murder of Stewart. At the trial court, Holmes was convicted by the South Carolina Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court denied writ of certiorari. The supplicant had appealed and the court granted a new trail.During the new trial the prosecution introduced new forensic cause including palm prints and blood that was found at the video of the crime. At the new trial, the petitioner also sought to introduce proof of another man named Jimmy McCaw White. The court excluded the trine party express of crime because the grounds of the evidence were not admissible. The evidenced only implicated that the third party and did not exclude the defendant. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari IssueIs evidence of a third partys guilt admissible if it only implicates the third party and does not exculpate the defendant? harness and Rationale Yes. Under the Constitution of the United States, a defendant in a criminal case has to be given the opportunity to present 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 comprehend 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 automatically 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 halt 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 spend meaning by bringing to light that the violence of one partys evidence has no logical conclusion that can be reached regarding the strength of the contrary evidence from the other side to cast doubt. The rule from Gay was arbitrary and violated a criminal defendants right to have a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defenseCase Significance The case clarified the Constitutional validity of rules of admission for third party guilt evidence. Just 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 cast doubt on the defendant.