Similarly, in the present case, the court applied the rule that "where there is strong evidence of [a defendant's] guilt, especially where there is strong forensic evidence, the proffered evidence about a third party's alleged guilt" may (or perhaps must) be excluded.
In an analogous situation, the court utilized the principle that "if there is significant proof of the defendant's guilt, particularly when there is solid forensic data, the offered evidence regarding another person's supposed culpability" might (or possibly should) be omitted.