547 U.S. 319 (2006)
On the morning of December 31, 1989, 86-year-old Mary Stewart was beaten, raped, and robbed in her home.1 She later died of complications stemming from her injuries.2 Holmes was convicted by a South Carolina jury of murder, first-degree criminal sexual conduct, first-degree burglary, and robbery, and he was sentenced to death.3 The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentence, and this Court denied certiorari.4 Upon state postconviction review, Holmes was granted a new trial.5
At the second trial, the prosecution relied heavily on the following forensic evidence.6 Holmes's palm print was found just above the door knob on the interior side of the front door of the victim's house.7 Fibers consistent with a black sweat-shirt owned by Holmes were found on the victim's bed sheets.8 Matching blue fibers were found on the victim's pink nightgown and on Holmes's blue jeans.9 Microscopically consistent fibers were found on the pink nightgown and on Holmes's underwear.10 Holmes's underwear contained a mixture of DNA from two individuals, and 99.99% of the population other than Holmes and the victim were excluded as contributors to that mixture.11 Holmes's tank top was found to contain a mixture of Holmes's blood and the victim's blood.12 The prosecution introduced evidence that Holmes had been seen near Stewart's home within an hour of the time when, according to the prosecution's evidence, the attack took place.13
As a major part of his defense, Holmes attempted to undermine the State's forensic evidence by suggesting that it had been contaminated and that law enforcement officers had engaged in a plot to frame him.14 Holmes's expert witnesses criticized the procedures used by the police in handling the fiber and DNA evidence and in collecting the fingerprint evidence.15 Holmes also sought to introduce proof that another man, Jimmy McCaw White, had attacked Stewart.16 At a pretrial hearing, Holmes proffered several witnesses who placed White in the victim's neighborhood on the morning of the assault. Holmes proffered four other witnesses who testified that White had either acknowledged that Holmes was innocent or had actually admitted to committing the crimes.17 One witness recounted that White said he did what they say he did and that he had no regrets about it at all.18
The trial court excluded Holmes's third-party guilt evidence citing State v. Gregory.19 On appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court found no error in the exclusion of Holmes's third-party guilt evidence.20 This Court granted certiorari.21
Whether a criminal defendant's federal constitutional rights are violated by an evidence rule under which the defendant may not introduce proof of third-party guilt if the prosecution has introduced forensic evidence that, if believed, strongly supports a guilty verdict?22
The Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.23 This right is abridged by evidence rules that infringe upon a weighty interest of the accused and are arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve.24 Well-established rules permit trial judges to exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury.25 Rules regulating the admission of evidence proffered by criminal defendants to show that someone else committed the crime are widely accepted.26 These rules require the evidence to raise a reasonable inference as to the defendant's innocence rather than merely casting a bare suspicion on another.27 A rule that excludes defense evidence of third-party guilt based solely on the strength of the prosecution's case, without considering challenges to the reliability of that case, does not rationally serve the legitimate end of focusing the trial on central issues.28
Yes. The South Carolina Supreme Court's rule, as applied here, excluded Holmes's evidence that White had attacked Stewart because of the strong forensic evidence against Holmes.29 This forensic evidence included the palm print on the door, fibers on the bed sheets and nightgown, and the DNA mixture on Holmes's underwear.30 The rule did not examine the probative value of the defense proffer, which included witnesses placing White in the neighborhood and witnesses recounting White's admissions that he committed the crimes and had no regrets.31
Instead, the rule focused exclusively on the strength of the prosecution's case.32 The South Carolina Supreme Court made no mention of Holmes's challenges to the forensic evidence, including expert testimony criticizing handling procedures and suggesting a plot to frame him.33 Because the rule evaluated only one side's evidence without considering attacks on its reliability, it failed to serve the purpose of excluding only evidence with a weak logical connection to the central issues.34 The rule is therefore arbitrary.35
The evidence rule applied by the South Carolina Supreme Court violates Holmes's federal constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.36