Murder—Evidence That Someone Else Did It (SCOTUS Preview)

In a case argued before the United States Supreme Court this February, and likely to be decided later this spring, the Supreme Court will consider whether a state's rule governing admissibility of third‑party guilt evidence “violates a criminal defendant's constitutional right to present a complete defense grounded in due process, confrontation, and compulsory process clauses.”^[1]

Background
Bobby Lee Holmes was convicted in a South Carolina state trial court of murder, burglary, sexual misconduct, and robbery.^[2] On appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court, the convictions and sentences (death for the murder, concurrent term sentences for the rest) were affirmed. Mr. Holmes maintained his innocence throughout.

Part of the defense theory was that, in spite of some forensic evidence connecting Mr. Holmes to the crimes scene, another individual named Jimmy White was in fact the true perpetrator. The trial court held a pre‑trial hearing in which it determined that evidence regarding White—including witness testimony implicating him, testimony that White has either confessed to third parties or had exculpated Holmes in the crime, and other character and circumstantial evidence—was inadmissible.^[3]

The standard applied for admissibility was based in state case law, providing that “evidence offered by the accused as to the commission of the crime by another person must be limited to such facts as are inconsistent with his own guilt, and to such facts as raise a reasonable inference of presumption as to his own evidence.”^[4] Implicit in this standard is the idea that strong, especially forensically sound, evidence of the defendant’s guilt pre-empts the presumptive guilt of another to the extent that the defendant’s innocence cannot be inferred from that evidence.

The South Carolina Supreme Court found that the strong forensic evidence in the case against Bobby Holmes was such that he was unable to raise the inference of innocence required under the state standard. The United States Supreme Court granted cert to consider the constitutional questions involving the defendant’s due process and confrontation rights.

It is important to note that the constitutional issues were never brought before the state Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court affirms solely on the constitutional basis and never reaches the claims on the merits, the holding could strengthen the states’ courts primacy in setting rules of procedural and substantive law. That is, that absent an express constitutional challenge otherwise, state courts are free to determine standards of law free of interference from federal court review.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner, Holmes, argued several procedural points in its brief to the Court.^[5] In seeking a new trial, Holmes argued that:

• The trial judge usurped the role of the jury to hear and weigh evidence;
• The rule barring the evidence in question denied the petitioner the right to call and confront witnesses;
• The petitioner was impermissibly denied the right to cross‑examine investigators about whether or not their investigations had taken account of evidence pointing toward White; and
• Allowing the court to weigh the evidence implicating White against the state’s case implicating Holmes was an improper measure of admissibility.

Respondent’s Arguments

In seeking affirmance of the convictions, the state argued that:

• Holmes’ failure to raise the federal questions upon appeal to the state court forecloses
  consideration of the issues by the federal court;
• The evidence pointing toward White was properly excluded by the court on its own lack of relevance and reliability; and
• Given the strength of the state’s evidence against Holmes, exclusion of the evidence pointing toward White resulted in harmless error.^[6]

The Supreme Court is likely to announce its decision in this case in May or June 2006.

---

[1] Holmes v. South Carolina, 126 S. Ct. 34 (U.S. 2005). See also Gabe Roth, Holmes, Bobby v. South Carolina, Medill News Service, Sept. 27, 2005.
[2] State v. Holmes, 605 S.E. 2d 19 (S.C. 2004).
[3] Alan Raphael, May a State Deny a Murder Defendant the Opportunity to Introduce Evidence That Another Person Was the Killer? Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases, Issue No. 5, Feb. 21, 2006.
[4] Id., citing State v. Gregory, 16 S.E. 2d 532 (1941) and State v. Gay, 541 S.E. 2d. 541 (2001).
[5] Holmes v. State, Brief for the Petitioner, No. 04-1327 (date unavailable).
[6] Holmes v. State, Brief for the Respondent, No. 04-1327, Jan. 11, 2006.