Judge Edward B. Cottingham unnecessarily accelerated and extended the trial each day from 9am to 10pm at night, using the excuse of “convenience for the jury.” This ‘convenience’ was so that the sequestered jury could go home quicker- a common theme throughout the trial. By doing so the murder trial lasted only 3 days, and subsequently hindered the ability of Kimberly’s defense team during her trial. It was the defense that had more to lose under this acceleration. Proper defense preparations for the next day’s court proceedings were made impossible by the extended trial hours. We all know things change during trial, and what happens at trial the current day is reevaluated for preparation and strategy changes the next day. Kimberly’s defense team was denied this opportunity and basically ‘locked’ for the 3 days. Kimberly’s defense team complained about being exhausted from the long trial days, which also contributed to their inability to properly prepare their defense for the next days.

At the very beginning of the trial Judge Cottingham made it clear that he would not allow the defense to present evidence that a third party instead committed the crime. Kimberly’s defense team objected but were predictably denied. Judge Cottingham used the excuse of “the same hoopla from the OJ trial on what they were trying to do,” to deny Kimberly her right to it. Kimberly’s defense team had spent significant time and resources and had hired a private investigator to no avail. The private investigator’s testimony, evidence, and arguments were never heard before Judge Cottingham’s courtroom, which would deprive the jury of further reasonable doubt. South Carolina had been depriving defendants of this basic right at trial up until 2006 when the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled against South Carolina in Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006).

“Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the right of a criminal defendant to present evidence that a third party instead committed the crime. The Court vacated the rape and murder conviction in South Carolina of a man who had been denied the opportunity to present evidence of a third party’s guilt, because the trial court believed the prosecutor’s forensic evidence was too strong for the defendant’s evidence to raise an inference of innocence. The Court ruled unanimously that this exclusion violated the right of a defendant to have a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense, because the strength of a prosecutor’s case had no logical relationship to whether a defendant’s evidence was too weak to be admissible.”

On one of Kimberly’s appeals this was brought up citing the US Supreme Court decision but her appeal was denied. Bill Diggs, her trial attorney, also handled her appeals process which he shouldn’t have done. A different attorney should have handled Kimberly’s appeals so that any negligence by the defense during trial (and there were many) could be addressed. Bill Diggs appealed this denial to a higher court but filed the appeal late and because of that late filing, Kimberly’s appeal to a higher court was denied. Bill Diggs has since been disbarred.

We have new evidence that a third party was criminally stalking and keeping tabs on Kimberly and who strongly resembled the composite of a more visually aware eyewitness the night of the robbery and shooting. We hope that a new appeal showing new third party evidence and using this US Supreme Court decision will prevail.