Whitton v. Dixon · ¶5
The Court of Appeals then considered whether to affirm on another basis advanced by the State: that Whitton was not prejudiced by any Giglio error because Ozio's testimony as a whole (not just the false part) was immaterial to the jury's verdict. The court explained that the Florida Supreme Court had made a determination relevant to that issue during Whitton's state postconviction proceedings. There, the Florida Supreme Court had stated that, even without Ozio's testimony, the evidence against Whitton was “overwhelming.” Whitton v. State, 161 So. 3d 314, 334 (2014). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the Court of Appeals owed deference to that state court determination unless it was “ `based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.' ” 2025 WL 1305158, *7 (quoting 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(2)); see 2025 WL 1305158, *17.…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.