Holmes v. South Carolina: Brief Amicus Curiae of Forty Professors of Evidence Law in Support of Petitioner

Authors

Richard D. Friedman, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow
Samuel R. Gross, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow
Richard O. Lempert, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow
David A. Moran, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Document Type

Brief

Publication Date

11-30-2005

Abstract

This brief amicus curiae is submitted on behalf of forty professors of law who teach the law of evidence at various law schools across the United States. They are identified by name and position in the Appendix to this brief. Petitioner Bobby Lee Holmes and Respondent the State of South Carolina have consented to the filing of this brief.

Amici teach, study and write about the law of evidence as applied by the state and federal courts of the United States. They have a professional interest in the issues presented by this case.

Petitioner Bobby Lee Holmes was convicted of rape and capital murder and sentenced to death. His main defense was that these crimes were committed by another man. Holmes attempted to call witnesses to prove this defense, including several who would have testified that the other suspect made statements confessing his guilt. The trial court excluded all of this evidence because it concluded, erroneously, that these statements were inadmissible as hearsay under South Carolina Law.

Under the rule adopted by the South Carolina Supreme Court, once a trial court judge concludes that a defendant is guilty, that defendant is not entitled to a jury trial on his defense. This rule is a judicial usurpation of the jury's constitutional authority to decide guilt or innocence in criminal prosecutions; it violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Because Petitioner was denied his right to a jury trial on the facts of his defense, he was also denied other constitutional rights in the truncated trial at which he was convicted: his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process to obtain witnesses in his favor, his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to present a defense, and his Fourteenth Amendment due process right to be convicted only if his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Comments

Amicus: Beecher-Monas, Professor Erica; Bernstein, Professor David E.; Brodin, Professor Mark S.; Broun, Professor Kenneth S.; Butler, Professor Katharine I.; Calhoun, Professor Robert K.; Callen, Professor Craig R.; Concannon, Professor James M.; Epstein, Professor Jules; Friedman, Professor Richard D.; Garland, Professor Norman M.; Goldsmith, Professor Michael; Hain, Professor Elwood; Hutter, Professor Michael J.; Kionka, Professor Edward J.; Lempert, Professor Richard; Leubsdorf, Professor John; McCord, Professor David; Merritt, Professor Deborah J.; Mnookin, Professor Jennifer; Moran, Professor David A.; Moreno, Professor Joelle Anne; Moss, Professor Frederick C.; Mostelier, Professor Robert P.; Orenstein, Professor Aviva; Park, Professor Roger C.; Peterson, Professor Robert W.; Risinger, Professor Michael; Rossi, Professor Faust F.; Scallen, Professor Eileen; Scott, Professor Kandis; Seaman, Professor Julie A.; Sklansky, Professor David Alan; Snyder, Professor Lloyd B.; Stone, Professor Randolph N.; Swift, Professor Eleanor; Taslitz, Professor Andrew E.; Tillers, Professor Peter; Tuerkheimer, Professor Deborah; Westen, Professor Peter

Recommended Citation

Friedman, Richard D.; Gross, Samuel R.; Lempert, Richard O.; and Moran, David A., "Holmes v. South Carolina: Brief Amicus Curiae of Forty Professors of Evidence Law in Support of Petitioner" (2005). Appellate Briefs. 17.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/briefs/17