What happened
The U.S. Supreme Court vacated an Eleventh Circuit ruling that had kept Florida death row prisoner Gary Richard Whitton from habeas relief, holding that the appeals court used the wrong evidence set when evaluating whether disputed jailhouse-informant testimony could have affected the jury's verdict.
In a per curiam opinion, the justices said the Eleventh Circuit "should not have considered the post-trial DNA evidence" when deciding whether the Florida Supreme Court reasonably determined that testimony from informant Jake Ozio was immaterial. The later DNA testing was not presented to the jury and did not exist at the time of trial, so it could not have influenced the verdict, the court said.
Whitton was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Florida. His habeas petition argued that Ozio falsely testified that he had no prior criminal history, that prosecutors knew the testimony was false, and that the testimony affected the jury's verdict under Giglio v. United States. The source spans state that juvenile records in the state's possession showed prior charges involving assault with bodily injury, terroristic threats and at least one burglary.
The Eleventh Circuit agreed that Ozio's criminal-history testimony was false and that the state knew it was false, but it affirmed denial of habeas relief after considering the overall evidence against Whitton. In doing so, the appeals court referred to DNA testing performed years after trial that matched blood on Whitton's boots to the victim, evidence the Supreme Court said was outside the proper harmlessness and materiality inquiry.
The justices did not decide whether the Florida Supreme Court's view of the trial evidence was reasonable, nor did they decide the state's argument that Whitton failed to exhaust his Giglio claim. Those issues remain for the Eleventh Circuit on remand, the court said.
Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justice Alito except as to one section. He said the court was summarily vacating over what he viewed as a minor and non-dispositive reference to later DNA testing, and he argued the Eleventh Circuit could reach the same result without relying on that evidence.