Holmes was faced with a charge sheet containing some of the most heinous crimes in society. The defendant faced first-degree burglary and robbery, first-degree murder, and rape of an 86 year old woman, Mary Stewart. Convicted by a trail Court in South Carolina Court, Holmes was denied certiorari. This means that the trial Court of South Carolina denied Holmes an attempt to introduce guilt by a third party. The Court held its decision in arguing that evidence presented by the third party was inadmissible given the fact that strong evidence had been presented by forensic science. However, the US Supreme court questioned the trial and granted certiorari to the accused, thereby bringing into action the famous Homes vs. South Carolina case.
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
According to Gardner and Anderson (2009), the issue behind the Homes vs. South Carolina case revolves around the question as to whether the “trial court was correct in excluding evidence of potential third party guilt that could eventually prove Holmes’ innocence.” The second issue is whether the denial of a meaningful opportunity for the presentation of evidence from the third party constituted a violation of the rights of the defendant.
Under the Constitution of the United States, the Fourth Amendment’s Due Process and Compulsory Process and Confrontation clauses of the Sixth Amendment provides for the provision of a meaningful opportunity to a defendant to present a complete defense (Gardner and Anderson, 2010). Analyzed from the Holmes Vs. In South Carolina’s case, these two clauses empower an individual to present evidence that the crime was committed by another person. The limits of this clause only come into cognizance when the evidence presented has no relevance to the crime before the court.
From the critical dissection of the case, it is discerned that the bulk of the evidence used in the delivery of judgment was drawn from the prosecutor. This was backed by the results of forensic science that have historically been contested based on their unreliability, validity, and accuracy (US Senate, 2008).
The exclusion of the evidence presented by the third party was not based on the relevance to the crime that forms the only limit in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Compulsory Process and Confrontation clauses of the Sixth Amendment. The judges excluded the evidence-based on the prosecution’s evidence. Furthermore, in the delivery of the judgment, the Supreme Court stated that there was no connection between the shreds of evidence presented by the prosecutor and that of the third party.
The theoretical understanding is that even if the evidence presented by the third party was weaker, it would have the capacity to dilute the prosecution’s evidence and prove the innocence of the defendant. The integrity of a criminal justice system is underpinned on the capacity to offer a meaningful opportunity for the accused to prove his or her innocence, and as such, all evidence presented should be given cognizance (Richard, 1999). The analysis of the case reveals that third-party evidence would have had an immense impact on the validity, reliability, and accuracy of the prosecution’s evidence.
By accepting the evidence presented by the third party, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the South Carolina trial court and brought back the case for a fresh trial. The significance of this case revolves around the need for the provision of meaningful opportunity that serves the legal interests of defendants and allows them to present all forms of evidence at their disposal. This is a key indicator of the integrity of a criminal justice system.
100% original paper
on any topic
done in as little as
Gardner, T. J., and Anderson, T. M. (2009). Case close-up: Holmes v. South Carolina. Criminal law. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Gardner, T. J., and Anderson, T. M. (2010). Criminal evidence: Principles and cases. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Richard A. N. (1999). Reconceiving the Right to Present Witnesses, Michigan Law Review. 97(8): 1063 – 1073.
US Senate. (2008). Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation 2008. Washington: Government Printing Office.