by TChris

States from time to time attempt to craft their rules of evidence or procedure, either legislatively or judicially, to make the prosecution's case easier to prove while disadvantaging criminal defendants. Like many states, South Carolina has a rule limiting the circumstances under which a defendant can introduce evidence that a third party is actually the guilty culprit. The South Carolina Supreme Court expanded that rule by disallowing evidence of third party guilt when there is strong forensic evidence pointing to the defendant's guilt.

In a unanimous opinion authored by its newest Justice, the U.S. Supreme Court today reversed the conviction of Bobby Lee Holmes. Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to present a defense, and while that right may be balanced against reasonable rules of evidence and procedure, South Carolina went too far in its attempt to rig the system in the prosecution's favor. The South Carolina court assumed that the forensic evidence was so strong as to negate the evidence that someone else was guilty, but didn't seem to notice the defense evidence that substantially weakened the probative value of the forensic evidence.