Whitton v. Dixon · ¶37

The Eleventh Circuit made clear that the testimony made no difference even before its brief mention of the DNA evidence. As the Eleventh Circuit explained, Whitton admitted to being at the motel; blood that matched Maulden's blood type had stained Whitton's boots and car; “Whitton could not explain the downward blood spatter on the inside of his boots; and Whitton's car contained a power and gas receipt and a car wash ticket for 2:37 a.m. October 10, 1990, the night of the murder.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 40a. That analysis more than establishes all that is necessary to resolve this claim: The Supreme Court of Florida's conclusion that the evidence presented at trial against Whitton was overwhelming was not “so lacking in justification” as to “preclud[e] even the possibility for fairminded dispute.” Klein, 607 U. S., at 221 (internal quotation marks omitted).

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