## Facts

- An 86-year-old woman was beaten, raped, and robbed in her home and later died from complications of her injuries.
- Bobby Lee Holmes was tried in South Carolina state court and, after post-conviction relief, received a second trial.
- At the second trial, the prosecution relied heavily on forensic evidence, including a palm print, fiber comparisons, and DNA/blood mixture evidence linking Holmes and the victim.
- Holmes sought to present evidence that law enforcement contamination or misconduct undermined the forensic evidence and that another person, Jimmy McCaw White, committed the crimes.
- Holmes proffered testimony placing White near the victim’s neighborhood around the time of the crime and indicating White had made statements implicating himself or exculpating Holmes.
- The trial court excluded Holmes’s third-party guilt evidence under South Carolina evidentiary doctrine as applied by the state appellate courts.
- The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that where the State presents strong evidence of guilt (especially strong forensic evidence), third-party guilt evidence does not raise a reasonable inference of the defendant’s innocence.

## Issues

1. Whether the Constitution permits a state to exclude a defendant’s third-party guilt evidence solely because the prosecution has introduced strong forensic evidence supporting guilt.
2. Whether such an exclusion violates the defendant’s right to present a complete defense under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and the Sixth Amendment Compulsory Process and Confrontation Clauses.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously vacated the judgment and remanded.
- The Court held unconstitutional the state rule as applied: excluding third-party guilt evidence based on a court’s threshold assessment that the prosecution’s evidence is strong.
- The Court reasoned that the rule did not evaluate the defense evidence’s probative value or traditional counterweights (e.g., unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury).
- The Court concluded that using the perceived strength of the State’s case as a gatekeeping device is arbitrary and can be disproportionate to legitimate evidentiary purposes.
- The Court emphasized that the State’s case strength cannot be fairly assessed without allowing adversarial testing, including challenges and contrary proof offered by the defense.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and, in appropriate settings, the Sixth Amendment.
- States have broad authority to set and apply evidentiary rules, including excluding evidence based on neutral doctrines such as relevance and balancing probative value against risks like unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury.
- Evidentiary rules violate the Constitution when they infringe a weighty defense interest and are arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes they claim to serve.
- A state may not bar defense evidence of third-party guilt solely because the prosecution’s evidence appears strong; admissibility must turn on the defense evidence’s own probative value and recognized evidentiary counterweights.

## Conclusion

The Court held that South Carolina’s “strong prosecution evidence” limitation on third-party guilt proof unconstitutionally restricted the right to present a complete defense because it excluded defense evidence based on the perceived strength of the State’s case rather than on evenhanded evidentiary criteria, and it therefore vacated and remanded for further proceedings.


Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006)