An Entity of Type: unit of work, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org

Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the right of a criminal defendant to present evidence that a third party instead committed the crime. The Court vacated the rape and murder conviction in South Carolina of a man who had been denied the opportunity to present evidence of a third party's guilt, because the trial court believed the prosecutor's forensic evidence was too strong for the defendant's evidence to raise an inference of innocence. The Court ruled unanimously that this exclusion violated the right of a defendant to have a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense, because the strength of a prosecutor's case had no logical relationship to whether a defendant's evidence was too weak to be admissible.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the right of a criminal defendant to present evidence that a third party instead committed the crime. The Court vacated the rape and murder conviction in South Carolina of a man who had been denied the opportunity to present evidence of a third party's guilt, because the trial court believed the prosecutor's forensic evidence was too strong for the defendant's evidence to raise an inference of innocence. The Court ruled unanimously that this exclusion violated the right of a defendant to have a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense, because the strength of a prosecutor's case had no logical relationship to whether a defendant's evidence was too weak to be admissible. The opinion was delivered by Justice Samuel Alito, and was his first opinion as a member of the Court following his confirmation on January 31, 2006. This follows a Supreme Court tradition that the first written opinion of a new justice reflect a unanimous decision. Also, this case had marked the last time in ten years that Clarence Thomas had asked a question during oral argument. This period of silence lasted until shortly after the death of Antonin Scalia, with the oral argument during Voisine v. United States. (en)
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 5154930 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 14033 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 1086481635 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:arguedate
  • 0001-02-22 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:argueyear
  • 2006 (xsd:integer)
dbp:case
  • Holmes v. South Carolina, (en)
dbp:decidedate
  • 0001-05-01 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:decideyear
  • 2006 (xsd:integer)
dbp:docket
  • 4 (xsd:integer)
dbp:fullname
  • Bobby Lee Holmes v. South Carolina (en)
dbp:holding
  • A State could not exclude evidence presented by a criminal defendant that a third party committed the crime simply because the prosecution had a strong case. South Carolina Supreme Court vacated and remanded. (en)
dbp:joinmajority
  • unanimous (en)
dbp:justia
dbp:lawsapplied
dbp:litigants
  • Holmes v. South Carolina (en)
dbp:majority
  • Alito (en)
dbp:otherSource
  • Supreme Court (en)
dbp:otherUrl
dbp:oyez
dbp:parallelcitations
  • 126 (xsd:integer)
dbp:prior
  • 17280.0
dbp:uspage
  • 319 (xsd:integer)
dbp:usvol
  • 547 (xsd:integer)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dcterms:subject
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the right of a criminal defendant to present evidence that a third party instead committed the crime. The Court vacated the rape and murder conviction in South Carolina of a man who had been denied the opportunity to present evidence of a third party's guilt, because the trial court believed the prosecutor's forensic evidence was too strong for the defendant's evidence to raise an inference of innocence. The Court ruled unanimously that this exclusion violated the right of a defendant to have a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense, because the strength of a prosecutor's case had no logical relationship to whether a defendant's evidence was too weak to be admissible. (en)
rdfs:label
  • Holmes v. South Carolina (en)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
foaf:name
  • (en)
  • Bobby Lee Holmes v. South Carolina (en)
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso    This material is Open Knowledge     W3C Semantic Web Technology     This material is Open Knowledge    Valid XHTML + RDFa
This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License