Whitton v. Dixon · ¶7

We vacate the Court of Appeals' judgment because that court should not have considered the post-trial DNA evidence in assessing whether the Florida Supreme Court reasonably determined that Ozio's testimony was immaterial to the jury's verdict. Because the post-trial DNA evidence was not presented to the jury (indeed, did not exist at the time of the trial), that evidence could not have infuenced the jury's verdict. It therefore sheds no light on whether (or to what extent) Ozio's testimony infuenced that verdict. See Brecht, 507 U. S., at 623 (“[T]he standard for determining whether habeas relief must be granted is whether the [constitutional] error had substantial and injurious effect or infuence in determining the jury's verdict” (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted)). The Florida Supreme Court did not consider the post-trial DNA evidence in making its determination, and…

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