The U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Samuel Alito writ­ing his first opin­ion, unan­i­mous­ly ruled on May 1 that South Carolina had deprived Bobbie Lee Holmes of a fair tri­al when it pre­vent­ed him from putting on evi­dence con­tra­dic­to­ry to the state’s case and that point­ed to anoth­er pos­si­ble sus­pect. South Carolina’s rule was that if the state had put on strong foren­sic evi­dence of the defen­dan­t’s guilt, the defen­dant could be pro­hib­it­ed from rais­ing an alter­na­tive the­o­ry of a third par­ty’s guilt. Justice Alito found this rule to be arbi­trary and irra­tional, writ­ing: ​“The point is that by eval­u­at­ing the strength of only one par­ty’s evi­dence, no log­i­cal con­clu­sion can be reached regard­ing the strength of con­trary evi­dence offered by the oth­er side to rebut or cast doubt.” A coali­tion of 18 states, led by Attorney General Phill Kline of Kansas, had filed a brief in sup­port of South Carolina’s position. 

HOLMES V. SOUTH CAROLINA, No. 04 – 1327 (May 1, 2006). (NY Times, May 2, 2006). Read the Court’s opin­ion. See Supreme Court and Innocence.

Citation Guide