In his maiden opinion for the Supreme Court, new Justice Samuel Alito Jr. said on Monday that states may not prevent criminal defendants from introducing evidence at trial that another person committed the crime.
The unanimous, pro-defendant decision in Holmes v. South Carolina was an unusual debut for Alito, a former U.S. Attorney not known for ruling in favor of the defense when he was a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Alito joined the high court Jan. 31, replacing Sandra Day O'Connor.
But Alito said that South Carolina had gone too far in barring evidence of third-party guilt in cases in which the prosecution has presented forensic evidence that strongly supports a guilty verdict for the defendant.
"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," Alito wrote.
Also on Monday, the Court ruled in the high-profile case of Marshall v. Marshall that Vickie Lynn Marshall, better known as the model Anna Nicole Smith, could resume her battle for part of her late husband's estate in federal court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for a unanimous Court, said the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had interpreted the "probate exception" to federal court jurisdiction too broadly. Though probate is mainly a state matter, Ginsburg said that Smith's claim of tortious interference with a gift could be pursued in federal court.
In the South Carolina criminal case, Bobby Lee Holmes was convicted in the 1989 murder of an 89-year-old woman based on evidence that Holmes' palm print, DNA, and fibers from his clothing were found at the crime scene. Lawyers for Holmes said the evidence had been contaminated, and they also claimed that another man had committed the crime.
|