Summary
The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Eleventh Circuit's judgment, and remanded a federal habeas case involving an alleged Giglio violation based on false testimony by a jailhouse informant. The Court held that the Eleventh Circuit should not have considered post-trial DNA evidence when evaluating whether the Florida Supreme Court reasonably determined that the informant's testimony was immaterial to the jury's verdict. The Court expressed no view on the reasonableness of the state-court determination based solely on trial evidence or on whether the Giglio claim was exhausted.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred by considering DNA evidence obtained after trial when evaluating whether the Florida Supreme Court reasonably determined that Ozio's testimony was immaterial to the jury's verdict.
- Whether the Supreme Court should decide the State's argument that Whitton failed to exhaust his Giglio claim in state court.
Holdings
- A federal appellate court may not rely on post-trial DNA evidence that was not presented to the jury when evaluating whether a state court reasonably determined that allegedly false testimony was immaterial to the jury's verdict.
- The Supreme Court would not decide whether Whitton failed to exhaust his Giglio claim because the Eleventh Circuit had not addressed that issue and the Supreme Court is a court of review, not first view.
Key quotations
“Because the post-trial DNA evidence was not presented to the jury (indeed, did not exist at the time of the trial), that evidence could not have influenced the jury’s verdict. It therefore sheds no light on whether (or to what extent) Ozio’s testimony influenced that verdict.” (4-5)
“We therefore grant the petition for writ of certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” (5)
Factual background
A Florida jury convicted Gary Richard Whitton of murdering and robbing James Maulden and sentenced him to death. Jailhouse informant Jake Ozio testified that Whitton confessed and falsely testified that he had no prior criminal history, although the State possessed juvenile records showing prior charges. At trial, DNA testing did not match blood on Whitton's boots to the victim, but a 2002 retest identified the victim's DNA in the blood. The Eleventh Circuit relied in part on that post-trial DNA evidence when assessing whether Ozio's testimony was material.
Procedural history
A Florida jury convicted Whitton of murder and sentenced him to death. After unsuccessful direct appeal and state postconviction proceedings, Whitton sought federal habeas relief, asserting, among other claims, a Giglio violation based on false testimony by jailhouse informant Jake Ozio. The District Court denied relief. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed on the ground that the false testimony was immaterial because the evidence against Whitton was overwhelming, but in assessing that evidence it considered DNA test results obtained years after trial. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded because the post-trial DNA evidence could not have influenced the trial jury's verdict.
Remand instructions
The Eleventh Circuit must reconsider the habeas claim without considering the post-trial DNA evidence when evaluating whether the Florida Supreme Court reasonably determined that Ozio's testimony was immaterial to the jury's verdict. The Eleventh Circuit may also address the State's exhaustion argument.