The question
Whether a court assessing harmless error on federal habeas review may consider post-trial evidence that the jury never saw when deciding whether a witness's testimony was material to the jury's verdict.
Whitton v. Dixon
What the Court decided
The Court vacated the Eleventh Circuit's judgment denying habeas relief and remanded. The Court of Appeals should not have considered post-trial DNA evidence when assessing whether the Florida Supreme Court reasonably determined that the informant's testimony was immaterial to the jury's verdict. Because that DNA evidence did not exist at trial and was never presented to the jury, it could not have influenced the verdict and therefore sheds no light on whether the testimony did. The Court expressed no view on whether the state court's determination was reasonable in light of the trial evidence, leaving that for the Court of Appeals to assess on remand.
How the justices split
UnanimousPer curiam (unsigned)
Delivered by the Court
The Court held that the Court of Appeals erred by considering post-trial DNA evidence when evaluating whether the Florida Supreme Court reasonably determined that the informant's testimony was immaterial to the jury's verdict. Under Brecht, the question is whether the constitutional error had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury's verdict, and evidence that did not exist at trial and was never presented to the jury could not have influenced that verdict. The Court expressed no view on whether the state court's determination was reasonable in light of the trial evidence, or on the State's exhaustion argument, leaving both for the Court of Appeals on remand.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The decision was issued per curiam with no noted dissents or concurrences.
Source: syllabus, lineup
The Court vacated the Eleventh Circuit's judgment denying Whitton's application for habeas relief.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court of Appeals considered post-trial DNA evidence that was never presented to the jury and did not exist at the time of trial when analyzing the state court's determination.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court reasoned that because the post-trial DNA evidence could not have influenced the jury's verdict, it sheds no light on whether the informant's testimony influenced that verdict under Brecht v. Abrahamson.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court expressed no view on whether the Florida Supreme Court's determination was reasonable in light of the trial evidence, leaving that for the Court of Appeals to assess on remand.
Source: syllabus, Held