A governmental or protected interest of sufficient importance or substantiality to justify imposing a burden on an individual's constitutional rights. The interest must be evenhanded in application and not disproportionate to the purposes it serves.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
4
Photo ID Requirement at Transit Polls
Whitney Washington arrives at an early-voting site inside a train station and is asked to show a government-issued photo ID before casting a ballot. Election officials verify the ID electronically and offer her a provisional ballot when a minor database flag appears. The requirement applies uniformly to every in-person voter at the site. The state's interests in deterring impersonation and maintaining public confidence in election integrity support the rule.
Exclusion of Polygraph Evidence
Wren Wright seeks to introduce polygraph results to bolster his testimony that he did not commit the charged offense. The trial court applies a per se rule barring all such evidence. The rule prevents Wright from presenting direct testimonial support for his defense. The government's interest in reliable evidence is not weighty enough to justify the complete exclusion.
In March 1992, Edward G. Scheffer, an airman stationed at March Air Force Base in California, volunteered to work as an informant on drug investigations for the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. His OSI supervisors advised him that they would ask him to submit to drug testing and polygraph examinations from time to time during his undercover work. In early April, one of the OSI agents supervising Scheffer requested that he submit to a urine test. Shortly after providing the urine sample, but before the results were known, Scheffer agreed to take a polygraph test administered by an OSI examiner, who concluded that the test indicated no deception when Scheffer denied using drugs since joining the Air Force.
On April 30, Scheffer unaccountably failed to appear for work and could not be found on the base. He remained absent without leave until May 13, when an Iowa state patrolman arrested him following a routine traffic stop and held him for return to the base. OSI agents later learned that Scheffer's urinalysis revealed the presence of methamphetamine. Scheffer was tried by general court-martial on charges of using methamphetamine, failing to go to his appointed place of duty, wrongfully absenting himself from the base for 13 days, and, with respect to an unrelated matter, uttering 17 insufficient funds checks.
At trial Scheffer testified on his own behalf, relying upon an innocent ingestion theory and denying that he had knowingly used drugs while working for OSI. On cross-examination the prosecution attempted to impeach him with inconsistencies between his trial testimony and earlier statements he had made to OSI. Scheffer sought to introduce the polygraph evidence in support of his testimony that he did not knowingly use drugs, but the military judge denied the motion and excluded the evidence pursuant to Military Rule of Evidence 707. Scheffer was convicted on all counts and sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 30 months, total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.
The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed in all material respects. By a 3-to-2 vote the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Wesley Wong attempts to introduce testimony that a third party confessed to the crime. The state court excludes the evidence under a rule that bars third-party guilt proof unless it meets a heightened reliability threshold. The exclusion prevents Wong from presenting a complete defense. The state's interest in avoiding confusion does not rise to the level of a weighty justification.
Holmes v. South Carolina547 U.S. 319 (2006)
On the morning of December 31, 1989, 86-year-old Mary Stewart was beaten, raped, and robbed in her home. She later died of complications stemming from her injuries. 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. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentence, and this Court denied certiorari. Upon state postconviction review, Holmes was granted a new trial.
At the second trial, the prosecution relied heavily on the following forensic evidence. Holmes's palm print was found just above the door knob on the interior side of the front door of the victim's house. Fibers consistent with a black sweat-shirt owned by Holmes were found on the victim's bed sheets. Matching blue fibers were found on the victim's pink nightgown and on Holmes's blue jeans. Microscopically consistent fibers were found on the pink nightgown and on Holmes's underwear. 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. Holmes's tank top was found to contain a mixture of Holmes's blood and the victim's blood. 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.
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. Holmes's expert witnesses criticized the procedures used by the police in handling the fiber and DNA evidence and in collecting the fingerprint evidence. Holmes also sought to introduce proof that another man, Jimmy McCaw White, had attacked Stewart. 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. One witness recounted that White said he did what they say he did and that he had no regrets about it at all.
The trial court excluded Holmes's third-party guilt evidence citing State v. Gregory. On appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court found no error in the exclusion of Holmes's third-party guilt evidence. This Court granted certiorari.
Wade Watson challenges the admission of his confession on the ground that it was involuntary. The state procedure leaves the voluntariness question to the same jury that decides guilt. The arrangement denies Watson a reliable determination of the constitutional claim. The state's interest in efficient trials does not outweigh the need for a separate and fair hearing.
4 common questions
Students Frequently Ask...
What makes a state interest sufficiently weighty in the voting context?
A state interest is sufficiently weighty when it is evenhanded, advances fraud prevention or election integrity, and does not impose severe burdens on voters. Courts balance the character and magnitude of the burden against the precise interests the state advances. Provisional ballots and cost-free alternatives help keep burdens modest.
Supporting sources
How does the weighty-interest test apply to evidentiary exclusions under the Compulsory Process Clause?
An evidentiary rule violates the clause only when it infringes a weighty interest of the accused and is arbitrary or disproportionate to its purposes. Direct testimonial evidence about what happened is more likely to qualify as weighty than other forms of proof. Per se exclusions that lack supporting considerations from precedent are vulnerable.
Supporting sources
Does the absence of proven fraud weaken a claimed weighty interest?
No. States may act on the basis of preventive interests such as deterring fraud before it occurs and bolstering public confidence. The Constitution does not require proof of widespread past fraud at the specific location. Legislative predictive judgments receive deference when burdens remain reasonable.
Supporting sources
When does a procedural rule fail the weighty-interest test in criminal cases?
A rule fails when it arbitrarily excludes important defense evidence without serving legitimate interests or when it is disproportionate to its goals. Examples include statutes that bar whole categories of testimony without the considerations that supported earlier precedent. The impact on the accused's ability to present a complete defense is decisive.
Supporting sources
weighty interest
of the accused. See, e.g., id., at 56; Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U. S. 284, 302 (1973); Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14, 22–23 (1967). In Rock v. Arkansas, we held that a per se rule…