Throwing Out The Right To Raise Questions Of Reasonable Doubt

Supreme Court Debates Defendants' Rights to Blame Others
Toni Locy - The Associated Press

The Supreme Court on Wednesday debated whether states can make it difficult for capital defendants to present to juries evidence that blames others for committing a crime. The case involves Bobby Lee Holmes, who was convicted in South Carolina in the 1989 beating, rape and robbery of Mary Stewart, 86, who later died of her injuries.

A trial judge excluded evidence that Holmes wanted to present at trial -- information which pointed toward another man as Stewart's assailant. The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state's forensic evidence was so strong that Holmes could not raise "a reasonable inference" of his innocence.

Whatever happened to the provisions of the Fifth Amendment? It seems to me that the right to present potentially exculpatory evidence that raises the "reasonable doubt" issue is a matter for a jury, not a matter of court rules or a judge's discretion. The evidentiary standard in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt." If a defendant is not allowed to introduce even the smallest piece of evidence it essentially denies due process and a proper defense.

"No person shall be... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." US Constitution - Amendment V

"Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia seemed concerned that states should retain the power to keep defendants from confusing juries by raising the possibility that someone else committed the crime or that police incompetence or misconduct allowed the real assailant to escape prosecution."

Are these justices forgetting the Ninth and Tenth Amendments that reserve rights not specifically delineated to the government to the people. Even the Tenth Amendment, which preserves "states rights" ultimately reserves rights to the people. Then the Fourteenth Amendment places the same level of legal burden that the federal government must meet onto the states.

Besides, the jury are the judges of the facts in a jury trial. The judge is supposed be impartial and a moderator of the rules and process of the trial, assuring fairness and justice.

Although the Court has not ruled on this case, the statements and questions offered by Roberts and Scalia are disturbing:

"I frankly think the Court is playing with fire," Scalia said. "I worry about criminal trials turning into circuses in which the police are put on trial."

Is Scalia revealing his true bias and trying to erase the presumption of innocence from the jury trial process? Or was he merely playing "devil's advocate" to test the metal of the argument? Given his past decisions and writings, I would place my money on bias and conservative "judical activism" aimed at changing the role of the court in dealing with those accused of crimes.

But Holmes' lawyer, John Blume, said the South Carolina court's decision unconstitutionally "stacks the deck" in the prosecution's favor by requiring judges to weigh the prosecution's evidence against a defendant's claim that someone else committed the crime.

New Justice Samuel Alito was active in the debate, raising questions about whether the South Carolina decision would result in judges, rather than juries, making calls on the credibility of defense witnesses. Determining witness credibility has long been a jury's job.

Color me surprised. A behavior that is inconsistent with his previous actions on the bench at the appellate level.

The case is Holmes v. South Carolina, 04-1327.