Jason Starr v. United States

I. In the opinion below, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the exclusion of defense evidence related to an alternate perpetrator based upon its reading of Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006), and the fact that the defense was unable to specifically identify every accomplice involved in the conspiracy to commit a murder for hire. Can this conclusion be reconciled with this Court’s precedent in Holmes, 546 U.S. 319? II. Does the Eleventh Circuit’s interpretation of Holmes unconstitutionally alter the burden of proof between the defense and the government in cases involving evidence of third-party guilt?