Document: 547 U.S. 319 (2006) HOLMES v. SOUTH CAROLINA No. 04-1327. Supreme Court of United States. Argued February 22, 2006. Decided May 1, *320 John H. Blume argued the cause for petitioner. With him on briefs were William A. Norris, Edward P. Lazarus, *321 Michael C. Small, Mark J. MacDougall, Jeffrey Kehne, and Sheri L. Johnson. Donald Zelenka, Assistant Deputy Attorney General South Carolina, respondent. brief Henry D. McMaster, General, W. McIntosh, Chief General. Steffen N. Johnson State Kansas et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance. Phill Kline, Kansas, Jared Maag, Gene Schaerr, Attorneys their respective States follows: Troy King Alabama, Terry Goddard Arizona, Mike Beebe Arkansas, Suthers Colorado, Carl Danberg Delaware, Bennett Hawaii, Lawrence Wasden Idaho, Gregory Stumbo Kentucky, Cox Michigan, Jim Hood Mississippi, Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon Missouri, George Chanos Nevada, Drew Edmondson Oklahoma, Hardy Myers Oregon, Thomas Corbett, Jr., Pennsylvania, E. Long Dakota, Greg Abbott Texas.[*] JUSTICE ALITO delivered opinion Court. This case presents question whether a criminal defendant's federal constitutional rights are violated by an evidence rule under which defendant may not introduce proof third-party guilt if prosecution has introduced forensic that, believed, strongly supports guilty verdict. I On morning December 31, 1989, 86-year-old Mary Stewart was beaten, raped, robbed in her home. She *322 later died complications stemming from injuries. Petitioner convicted Carolina jury murder, first-degree sexual conduct, burglary, robbery, he sentenced to death. Holmes, 320 S. 259, 262, 464 S.E.2d 334, 336 (1995). The affirmed his convictions sentence, this denied certiorari. Ibid., cert. denied, 517 1248 (1996). Upon state postconviction review, however, petitioner granted new trial. 361 333, 335, n. 605 19, 20, 1 (2004). At second trial, relied heavily following evidence: "(1) [Petitioner's] palm print found just above door knob interior side front victim's house; (2) fibers consistent with black sweat-shirt owned [petitioner] bed sheets; (3) matching blue pink nightgown [petitioner's] jeans; (4) microscopically underwear; (5) underwear contained mixture DNA two individuals, 99.99% population other than victim excluded contributors that mixture; (6) tank top contain blood blood." Id., at 343, S.E.2d, 24. In addition, had been seen near Stewart's home within hour time when, according prosecution's evidence, attack took place. 337-338, 21, As major part defense, attempted undermine State's suggesting it contaminated certain law enforcement officers engaged plot frame him. 339, 22. Petitioner's expert witnesses criticized *323 procedures used police handling fiber collecting fingerprint evidence. App. 299-311, 313-323. Another defense provided testimony cited supporting claim planted police. 326-327. also sought another man, Jimmy McCaw White, attacked Stewart. C., 340, pretrial hearing, proffered several who placed White neighborhood assault, well four testified either acknowledged "`innocent'" or actually admitted committing crimes. 340-342, 22-23. One witness recounted when asked about "word . street" responsible "put head down raised back up said, well, you know like older women." 119. According witness, added "he did what they say did" "no regrets all." 120. incarcerated assaulting Stewart, officer testify falsely against petitioner, employees prosecutor's office, while soliciting witness' cooperation, spoken manufacturing 38-50. hearing making incriminating statements. 341-342, 23. He alibi crime, but refuted alibi. 342, trial court petitioner's citing Gregory, 198 98, 16 532 (1941), held such is admissible "`raise[s] reasonable inference presumption [the defendant's] own innocence'" *324 merely "`cast[s] bare suspicion upon another'" conjectural commission crime another.'" 133-134 (quoting supra, 104, 534). appeal, no error exclusion Citing both its decision Gay, 343 543, 541 (2001), "where there strong appellant's guilt, especially where third party's alleged does raise innocence." 342-343, Applying standard, could "overcome We 545 1164 (2005). II "[S]tate rulemakers have broad latitude Constitution establish rules excluding trials." Scheffer, 523 303, 308 (1998); see Crane 476 683, 689-690 (1986); Marshall Lonberger, 459 422, 438, 6 (1983); Chambers 410 284, 302-303 (1973); Spencer Texas, 385 554, 564 (1967). latitude, limits. "Whether rooted directly Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment Compulsory Confrontation Clauses Sixth Amendment, guarantees defendants `a meaningful opportunity present complete defense.'" Crane, 690 California Trombetta, 467 479, 485 (1984); citations omitted). right abridged "infring[e] weighty interest accused" "`arbitrary' `disproportionate purposes designed serve.'" *325 Rock 483 44, 58, 56 (1987)). Court's cases illustrations "arbitrary" rules, i. e., important serve any legitimate interests. Washington 388 14 (1967), statutes barred person charged participant testifying unless acquitted. result, tried precluded calling previously same murder. Holding put violated, we noted embodied "even be defended ground rationally sets apart group persons particularly likely commit perjury" since allowed she acquitted called prosecution. A similar violation occurred supra. murder man named McDonald, confessed When McDonald repudiated confession stand, permission examine adverse based "`voucher' rule," parties impeaching witnesses. 294. because hearsay include exception statements penal interest, permitted made self-incriminating three persons. Noting even "defend" "explain [the] underlying rationale" "voucher id., 297, "the McDonald's out-of-court statements], coupled refusal permit defendant] cross-examine *326 accord traditional fundamental standards due process," 302. arbitrary unconstitutional There, prevented attempting show unreliable circumstances obtained, neither nor "advanced rational justification wholesale body potentially exculpatory evidence." 691. prohibiting hypnotically refreshed "[w]holesale inadmissibility restriction absence clear repudiating validity all post-hypnosis recollections." 61. By contrast, polygraph abridge "serve[d] interests "neither disproportionate promoting these ends," "implicate sufficiently defendant." 309. While thus prohibits purpose ends asserted promote, well-established judges exclude probative value outweighed factors unfair prejudice, confusion issues, potential mislead jury. See, e. g., Fed. Rule Evid. 403; Uniform 45 (1953); ALI, Model Code Evidence 303 (1942); 3 Wigmore, §§ 1863, 1904 (1904). Plainly referring type, stated permits "to `repetitive ., only marginally relevant' poses undue risk `harassment, *327 [or] issues.'" U. S., Delaware Van Arsdall, 475 673, 679 ellipsis brackets original). See Montana Egelhoff, 518 37, 42 (1996) (plurality opinion) (terming "familiar unquestionably constitutional"). specific application principle regulating admission someone else committed charged. 41 Homicide § 216, pp. 56-58 (1991) ("Evidence tending accused inconsistent with, raises doubt of, guilt; frequently matters offered so remote lack connection excluded"); 40A Am. Jur. 2d, 286, 136-138 (1999) ("[T]he legal prove [Such evidence] connect as, example, speculative remote, tend disprove material fact issue trial" (footnotes omitted)). Such widely accepted,[*] challenge them here. *328 adopted applied apparently intended given court's references "applicable rule" Corpus Juris American Jurisprudence: "`[E]vidence must limited facts innocence; can (no) effect cast another, admissible. [B]efore received, it, train circumstances, tends clearly point out party.'" 104-105, 534-535 J., Criminal Law 1085, p. 560 (1918), 20 Jur., 265, 254 (1939); footnotes Gay case, radically changed extended rule. after recognizing standard "[i]n view guiltespecially evidence inference' *329 550, 534, turn quoting 560). Similarly, noted, [a guilt" (or perhaps must) excluded. Under rule, judge focus effects admitting guilt. Instead, critical inquiry concerns strength case: If enough, viewed independently, would great pose harassment, issues. Furthermore, seems call little, any, examination credibility reliability Here, strenuously claimed (due mishandling deliberate petitioner) should admitted. responded challenges entirely "eviscerate" went weight admissibility 8, 24, 8. Yet, evaluating deeming "strong"and thereby justifying evidencethe mention *330 Interpreted way, end analogues jurisdictions central issues very weak logical appears logic: Where (1) one involved particular perpetrator, follows weak. But logic depends accurate evaluation proof, true cannot assessed without considering Just credited, provide support verdict, follow case. And conceded, sort factual findings traditionally reserved trier courts purport make more converse be, barring introducing able proffer, verdict guilty. squarely proved perpetrator. It sense, hold proffer including *331 conclusion reached regarding contrary rebut doubt. Because heed point, sense further. Nor identified serves. violates "`a 485). III For reasons, vacate judgment remand further proceedings opinion. ordered. NOTES [*] Briefs reversal filed Forty Professors Samuel R. Gross; National Association Defense Lawyers T. Green Richard Young. Elaine Metlin Ann-Marie Luciano amicus Innocence Project, Inc. Smithart State, 988 P.2d 583, 586-587 (Alaska 1999); Shields 357 Ark. 283, 287-288, 166 S.W.3d 28, 32 (2004); People Hall, Cal. 3d 826, 833, 718 99, 103-104 (1986) (en banc); Mulligan, 193 Colo. 509, 517-518, 568 449, 456-457 (1977) West, 274 Conn. 605, 624-627, 877 A.2d 787, 802-803 (2005); Winfield States, 676 (D. 1996) Klinect 269 Ga. 570, 573, 501 810, 813-814 Rabellizsa, 79 Haw. 347, 350-351, 903 43, 46-47 (1995); Fort, 248 Ill. 301, 314, 618 N.E.2d 445, 455 (1993); Adams, 280 Kan. 494, 504-507, 124 P.3d 27-29 Beaty Commonwealth, 125 196, 207-208 (Ky. 2003); Dechaine, 572 130, 134 (Me. 1990); Commonwealth Scott, 408 Mass. 811, 815-816, 370, 374-375 (1990); Jones, 678 N.W.2d 16-17 (Minn. 2004) Moore 179 Miss. 268, 274-275, 175 So. 183, 184 (1937); Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47, 55 (Mo. 1998) Cotto, 182 316, 332-333, 865 660, 669-670 Gore 2005 OK CR 14, ¶¶ 13-24, 119 1268, 1272-1276; 532, (1941); Wiley 74 399, 405-408 (Tex. Crim. 2002); Grega, 168 Vt. 363, 375, 721 454 Thomas, 150 Wash. 2d 821, 856-858, 83 970, (2004) Parr, 207 Va. 469, 475, 534 23, 29 (2000) (per curiam); Denny, 120 Wis. 614, 622-625, 12, (App. 1984).

Category: 3