Question 1

The South Carolina law the Court addressed in Holmes posited that if the state has strong forensic evidence, then a defendant cannot raise an "alternative perpetrator defense."

Accepted Answer

The law stated that if the state has strong forensic evidence, then a defendant cannot raise an "alternative perpetrator defense."

Question 2

In Holmes v. South Carolina, writing for a unanimous majority opinion, Justice Alito held that a South Carolina law violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Accepted Answer

Justice Alito, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, held that the South Carolina law, which restricted the ability of defendants to present evidence of third-party guilt, violated the Sixth Amendment's right to a fair trial and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.

Question 3

Seventeen states, including South Carolina, require defendants to present evidence indicating an "indirect link" between a particular third party and the offense.

Accepted Answer

South Carolina, unlike the mentioned seventeen states, does not require defendants to present evidence indicating an "indirect link" between a particular third party and the offense. Instead, it allows defendants to suggest that someone else committed the crime without necessarily providing a direct connection to the offense.

Question 4

In Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania (2003), the Court resolved the issue of whether a life sentence imposed by a court constitutes a form of acquittal and bars a retrial for a harsher sentence by relying on the concept of due process and the 5th Amendment's double jeopardy clause.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court in Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania addressed whether a life sentence, after a jury deadlock on the death penalty, constituted an acquittal under the Double Jeopardy Clause, ultimately ruling that it did not bar retrial for a harsher sentence.

Question 5

The implications of the Brady rule extend beyond the case itself. According to the text, it encompasses the domain of criminal procedure applicable to the prosecutor's duty to disclose favorable or exculpatory evidence to the accused.

Accepted Answer

The Brady rule, established by the Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland (1963), mandates that prosecutors must disclose any materially exculpatory evidence in the government's possession to the defense. This rule is a fundamental aspect of criminal procedure, ensuring fairness in the legal process by requiring the disclosure of evidence that could exonerate the accused or affect the outcome of the trial.

Question 6

By way of Cone v. Bell (2009), the Court reminds us that the Brady rule encompasses evidence that may not reduce a defendant's culpability but nevertheless mitigates punishment.

Accepted Answer

Cone v. Bell (2009) clarified that the Brady rule, which requires the prosecution to disclose evidence favorable to the defendant, applies not only to evidence that could exonerate a defendant or reduce their culpability but also to evidence that could mitigate the severity of the punishment.

Question 7

In Smith v. Cain, a non-death penalty case, the Court established that disclosure was required even when defense counsel disapproved.

Accepted Answer

Smith v. Cain was a case that dealt with the nondisclosure of evidence by the prosecution in a murder trial, which violated the defendant's constitutional rights. It did not specifically address the issue of defense counsel's approval or disapproval of disclosure.

Question 8

In Smith v. Cain, the Court said no ineffective assistance of counsel claim existed when a defense attorney failed to object to a "double-counting" technique that was based on then-existing Eighth Circuit law.

Accepted Answer

In Smith v. Cain, the Supreme Court did not address an ineffective assistance of counsel claim related to a "double-counting" technique or Eighth Circuit law. The case focused on the nondisclosure of exculpatory evidence by the prosecution, violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.

Question 9

In Connick v. Thompson,the Court ultimately refused to provide relief to Thompson because the New Orleans District Attorney's office committed a pattern of unrelated Brady violations that would have put the agency on notice that training was constitutionally required.

Accepted Answer

In Connick v. Thompson, the Supreme Court held that the New Orleans District Attorney's office could not be held liable for failing to train its prosecutors based on a single Brady violation, indicating that a pattern of similar violations would be necessary to establish such a failure.

Question 10

The Court eventually began to use the right to due process of law instead of the 8^th Amendment for invalidating state capital sentencing procedures.

Accepted Answer

The Court has increasingly relied on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment rather than the 8th Amendment to address issues with state capital sentencing procedures, focusing on fairness and procedural safeguards.

Quiz 8: Due Process and the Death Penalty