미국 증거법상 제3자 유죄증거(Third-Party Guilt Evidence: SODDI 항변)와 직결성 원칙(Direct Connection Doctrine)

In the United States, most states impose certain types of disfavored treatment on the“Third-Party Guilt Evidence(SODDI Defense).” However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the defendant has the constitutional right to present the SODDI Defense since Chambers v. Mississippi (1973) and Holmes v. South Carolina (2006). Recently, in Alvarez v. Ercole (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that precluding the defendant from presenting the third-party guilt evidence invades the defendant's right to cross-examine under the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause and the right to present critical exculpatory evidence. Courts in most states apply various discretionary standards of evidence rules. The rationale of the “Direct Connection Doctrine” is based on unreasonable concerns with regard to the dangers of “confusion of issues,” “fabrication of evidence,” and “unfair prejudice.” “Fabrication of evidence” and “unfair prejudice” go to every evidence so it is unfair to exclude the whole third-party guilt evidences. Also, the risk of “confusion of issues” will be high only where the probative value of the evidence is high, which means that courts need to examine the evidence for the fact-finding. On the contrary, the third-party evidence will let the prosecutors to see the blind side of the investigation and curb the temptation to “rush to judgement.” Therefore, the defendant should be permitted to present the third-party guilt evidence in accordance with the consitutional right to a fair trial and due process. This view could be applicable to Korean rules of evidence.