Whitton v. Dixon

608 U. S. 493 (2026) · 6/01/26

The Court of Appeals erred in considering post-trial DNA evidence when assessing whether the Florida Supreme Court reasonably determined that jailhouse informant Ozio’s testimony was immaterial to the jury’s verdict, because evidence not presented to the jury could not have influenced the jury’s verdict and therefore sheds no light on whether Ozio’s testimony influenced that verdict.

During petitioner Gary Richard Whitton's murder trial, the State called a jailhouse informant named Jake Ozio, who testified that he overheard Whitton confess. Ozio also falsely testified that he had no criminal history prior to the arrest for which he was jailed with Whitton. Ozio's juvenile records showed he had previously been charged with assault with bodily injury, terroristic threats, and burglary. Whitton was convicted and sentenced to death. After unsuccessfully pursuing a direct appeal and state postconviction relief, he fled an application for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal…

Held: The Court of Appeals erred in considering post-trial DNA evidence when assessing whether the Florida Supreme Court reasonably determined that Ozio's testimony was immaterial to the jury's verdict, because evidence not presented to the jury could not have infuenced the jury's verdict and therefore sheds no light on whether Ozio's testimony infuenced that verdict. The Court of Appeals was required to assess whether the Florida Supreme Court's determination was reasonable in light of the evidence presented at trial.