The U.S. Supreme Court agreed yes­ter­day to review the case of a death row inmate from South Carolina who was denied the oppor­tu­ni­ty at tri­al to present evi­dence of the pos­si­ble guilt of anoth­er per­son. In Holmes v. South Carolina, No. 04 – 1327, the Court will con­sid­er whether the state’s rules regard­ing such evi­dence deprived Holmes of his due process rights to present a com­plete defense. In 2004, the South Carolina Supreme Court had ruled that the state’s evi­dence against Holmes was so strong that he should not be allowed to present evi­dence that anoth­er per­son had been seen near the scene of the crime and had con­fessed to the mur­der that Holmes was charged with. One judge dis­sent­ed, say­ing that Holmes should have been allowed to put on evi­dence of third-par­ty guilt because Holmes had suf­fi­cient­ly chal­lenged the state’s evi­dence against him. See the South Carolina deci­sion in State v. Holmes.

In its com­ing term start­ing on October 3, the U.S. Supreme Court will also hear House v. Bell, con­cern­ing the stan­dard of evi­dence need­ed for a new claim of inno­cence, and Oregon v. Guzek, con­cern­ing the right to put on evi­dence of inno­cence dur­ing the penal­ty phase of a capital trial. 

(DPIC, Sept. 28, 2005). See Supreme Court and Innocence.

Citation Guide