A Florida jury convicted petitioner Gary Whitton of murder and sentenced him to death. At trial, jailhouse informant Jake Ozio testified that he overheard Whitton confess to the murder. Ozio also testified that he had no prior criminal history, but juvenile records already in the State’s possession showed otherwise.
Whitton later brought a federal habeas claim under Giglio v. United States, arguing that the prosecution knowingly presented false testimony and that there was a reasonable likelihood the false testimony affected the verdict. The Eleventh Circuit agreed that Ozio’s criminal-history testimony was false and known by the State to be false, but ultimately denied relief. In deciding that Ozio’s testimony was immaterial, the Eleventh Circuit relied in part on DNA testing performed years after trial that linked blood on Whitton’s boots to the victim. At trial, however, the DNA analyst testified that the blood matched neither Whitton nor the victim.
The Supreme Court summarily vacated and remanded. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that the Eleventh Circuit should not have considered evidence that did not exist when the jury reached its verdict. The later DNA testing could not have influenced the jury and therefore shed no light on whether Ozio’s testimony affected that verdict.
The Court did not decide whether the Florida Supreme Court’s materiality determination was unreasonable based on the trial evidence, nor did it decide the State’s separate argument that Whitton had failed to exhaust the particular Giglio claim in state court. Those issues remained for the Eleventh Circuit on remand.
Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justice Alito except as to part of the opinion. He argued that any reference to the later DNA testing was harmless because the trial record already contained overwhelming evidence of guilt and also emphasized Whitton’s failure to exhaust the claim in state court.
Certiorari to the Eleventh Circuit
Per curiam opinion
Dissenting opinion by Thomas, joined by Alito except as to Part III–B
Click here to read the opinion.