Whitton v. Dixon · ¶24

The Supreme Court of Florida denied Whitton's motion for postconviction relief. It concluded that Whitton had failed to show either that Ozio's testimony about Whitton's confession was false or that the prosecutor knew that it was false. Id., at 323–324. The court also rejected a separate claim regarding other testimony. In so doing, the court relied on the “overwhelming evidence against Whitton” presented at trial even apart from his confessions. Id., at 334. It did not rely on the DNA test results from 2002 confrming that the blood on Whitton's boot was Maulden's.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.