Richard Ralph Conte, Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee — Hart, J., Concurring

Summary

The concurrence agreed that the judgment had to be affirmed but expressed serious concern that Conte may not have received a fair trial. It identified potentially prejudicial precharge delay and the exclusion of evidence implicating other possible perpetrators, while concluding that the appellate arguments did not require reversal. The concurrence criticized the governing third-party-guilt precedent as inconsistent with the constitutional right to present a complete defense.