Whitton v. Dixon · ¶3

After unsuccessfully pursuing a direct appeal and state postconviction relief, Whitton fled an application for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal District Court. Among other claims, he argued that Ozio's criminal-history testimony was false, that the prosecution knew the testimony was false, and that there was a reasonable likelihood the testimony affected the jury's verdict. Whitton claimed that, as a result, his due process rights had been violated under this Court's decision in Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972). And he contended, as was additionally necessary for federal habeas relief, that the Giglio error had a “ `substantial and injurious effect or infuence in determining the jury's verdict.' ” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 623 (1993). The District Court denied relief, finding that any Giglio error “could not have made a difference” to the jury's verdict because…

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