Holmes was convicted and received a death sentence for murdering, beating, raping, and robbing an eighty-six-year-old woman. Although his convictions and sentence were affirmed on appeal by the state courts, he was granted a new trial upon post conviction review. Holmes sought at the new trial to introduce evidence that the victim’s attacker was another man named White. The trial court excluded Holmes’s evidence that White had perpetrated the crime. The state Supreme Court affirmed the trial court ruling “where there is strong evidence of an appellant’s guilt, especially where there is strong forensic evidence, the proffered evidence about a third party’s alleged guilt does not raise a reasonable inference as to the appellant’s own innocence.” Holmes successfully petitioned for a writ of certiorari. He argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that he had a constitutionally protected right to introduce proof that White had committed the attack on the victim despite the introduction of forensic which, if believed, would “strongly support a guilty verdict.” Was the state Supreme Court correct?