[richlevy]

This is a disturbing story. Not that the Supreme Court overturned the ruling unanimously, which makes a lot of sense. What is disturbing is that the rule was out there in the first place. Of course, this is South Carolina we're talking about.

WASHINGTON -- With Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. writing his first opinion, the Supreme Court yesterday overturned the murder conviction of a South Carolina man and said his lawyers had been wrongly barred from telling the jury that another man committed the crime.
''The Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense," Alito said for a unanimous court.

Defense lawyers often seek to prove their client's innocence by showing another person might be guilty of the crime.
However, South Carolina's judges said that if the prosecution has strong evidence of a defendant's guilt, the defense could be barred from presenting evidence that points to another suspect.
Alito said this rule ''is no more logical than its converse would be" -- a rule that would throw out the prosecution's evidence whenever the defendant had a strong alibi.

Four witnesses told a preliminary hearing they had heard White admit to the crime or say Holmes was innocent.
Nonetheless, the judge excluded this evidence from Holmes's trial because prosecutors had ''strong forensic evidence" of his guilt. He was convicted and sentenced to death.
The South Carolina courts upheld the verdict and the death sentence.

I can just here the trial judge now. (Strong southern drawl) "He may not be all guilty, but he's guilty enough. Get the rope."