Last week, the high court said the Fourth Circuit overstepped<\/a> by reviving a challenge to President Donald Trump\u2019s crackdown on dissent within the federal government. And last year, the court issued similar reversals in a Louisiana\u2019s man healthcare discrimination suit<\/a> based on HIV status, a Maryland murder trial<\/a> and a Mississippi child abuse case.<\/p>\n Justice Clarence Thomas, a George H.W. Bush appointee, criticized his colleagues for only offering such relief in \u201ccertain\u201d cases.<\/p>\n \u201cIt would be one thing if this practice reflected the court\u2019s consistent commitment to correcting legal error in all cases,\u201d Thomas wrote in dissent. \u201cBut, in reality, this court routinely declines to provide relief to law-abiding Americans when it would actually matter, even after lower courts conspicuously flout this court\u2019s precedents in ruling against them.\u201d<\/p>\n Thomas cited the HIV discrimination and the Mississippi child abuse cases as examples of appeals the court felt were worthy of intervention. But he claimed his colleagues turned down opportunities to intervene in other appeals involving affirmative action policies, university censorship and a widow\u2019s wrongful death lawsuit<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is unfortunate that the court chose to intervene at the request of a convicted murderer to correct the 11th Circuit\u2019s inconsequential foot fault,\u201d Thomas wrote. \u201cWhat makes it even worse is that the court does so even while it refuses to correct far more consequential errors for law-abiding citizens, such as the discriminated-against families in Boston, Staff Sergeant Beck\u2019s widow, and the students seeking to challenge university censorship.\u201d<\/p>\n In Monday\u2019s ruling, the justices held that the 11th Circuit improperly considered new DNA evidence to uphold Gary Richard Whitton\u2019s murder conviction instead of addressing whether the false testimony affected the jury\u2019s verdict.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Florida Supreme Court did not consider the posttrial DNA evidence in making its determination, and the court of appeals should not have done so in evaluating that determination either,\u201d the justices wrote.<\/p>\n Whitton was sentenced to death for the 1990 murder of James Maulden. A jury convicted Whitton after hearing from several witnesses, including a jailhouse informant, Jake Ozio, who said Whitton confessed to stabbing Maulden.<\/p>\n Ozio erroneously testified that he had no prior criminal history before the arrest that landed him in jail with Whitton. As a juvenile, Ozio was charged with assault with bodily injury against his father, terroristic threats against his mother, and at least one other burglary.<\/p>\n Whitton said there was a chance Ozio\u2019s testimony \u2014 which prosecutors knew was false \u2014\u00a0affected the jury\u2019s verdict.<\/p>\n A lower court rejected Whitton\u2019s challenge, holding that the error was harmless because Florida juvenile criminal records are generally inadmissible to attack a witness\u2019s credibility.<\/p>\n The 11th Circuit affirmed but on different reasoning. The appeals court said Whitton would have been convicted without Ozio\u2019s testimony, citing findings by the Florida Supreme Court. But instead of reviewing whether the state court\u2019s determinations were reasonable, the 11th Circuit considered new DNA evidence.<\/p>\n The U.S. Supreme Court said the additional DNA evidence analysis was outside of the case before the 11th Circuit.<\/p>\n \u201cBecause the posttrial DNA evidence was not presented to the jury (indeed, did not exist at the time of the trial), that evidence could not have influenced the jury\u2019s verdict,\u201d the court wrote.<\/p>\n Thomas criticized his colleagues for intervening based on a technicality that didn\u2019t really affect the outcome of a case.<\/p>\n \u201cFortunately, though, the court\u2019s decision will have no real-world effect,\u201d Thomas wrote. \u201cThe 11th Circuit can reissue a virtually identical opinion after deleting one sentence on page 42 and one part of one sentence on page 40, where the 11th Circuit discussed the 2002 DNA tests.\u201d<\/p>\n Justice Samuel Alito, a George W. Bush appointee, joined the majority of Thomas\u2019 dissent. The two conservative justices split over Thomas\u2019 claim that the high court was increasingly granting summary relief only in certain cases.<\/p>\n Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing
\nFollow @KelseyReichmann<\/a>
\n![](\"\/wp-content\/themes\/cns\/img\/bluesky-white-icon.svg\"\/){kind=icon}
\nFollow @kelseyreichmann.bsky.social<\/a>Subscribe to our free newsletters<\/p>\n
\ntrials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world,
\nwhile the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood,
\nsports, Big Tech and the arts.<\/p>\n