NEWNow you can listen to Fox News articles!
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, accused the Supreme Court of focusing on mistrials after jurors overturned a lower court’s decision in a Florida murder case for what he described as a “senseless misstep” that would not have “impacted the outcome of the case.”
Thomas argued that Gary Whitton’s request for a new trial based on false testimony from a prosecution witness would not have changed the outcome because the evidence against the Florida death row inmate was overwhelming. But what stood out the most was his rejection of the Court’s priorities. He cited cases involving race, free speech and military families that judges have refused to hear as examples of conflicts he believes deserve the Court’s attention.
“It is regrettable that the Court chose to intervene in a convicted murderer’s petition to correct an inconsequential Eleventh Circuit error,” Thomas wrote in his dissent. “What makes it worse is that the Court is doing so despite refusing to correct the grave mistakes of law-abiding citizens.”
Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas speaks at the University of Texas at Austin on April 15, 2026, in Austin, Texas. (Photo by Eric Gay/AP)
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Eleventh Circuit must reconsider whether it granted Whitton a new trial without considering DNA evidence obtained after the original trial. Evidence showed that the blood stains found inside Whitton’s boots belonged to James Maulden, who was found dead with multiple stab wounds in a motel room on October 10, 1990. The night before, Whitton was seen with Maulden at the bank, where the victim withdrew the entire balance of his account.
SUPREME COURT OVERCOME OKLAHOMA PRISONER ON DEATH ROW.
Jurors ruled that DNA evidence obtained through advanced testing in 2002 was irrelevant because the original jury did not know about it during the 1991 trial.
But Thomas took the Eleventh Circuit’s reliance on DNA testing to result in its denial as a “technical” error.
“If the Eleventh Circuit erred in addressing the DNA test results, it was harmless for at least two reasons. First, the court properly considered the overwhelming evidence against Whitton, which was more than sufficient to justify its decision,” Thomas wrote. “Second, Whitton had not yet filed his claim in state court, so the Eleventh Circuit could not decide for him.”
Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito is pictured in Washington, DC, on Oct. 7, 2022. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
JUSTICE THOMAS REbukes SCOTUS FOR DENIAL OF WIDOW’S CASE, SAYS ALLOWS DODGE GOVERNMENT TO SUSPECT
Whitton’s decision for a new trial was based on the finding that Jake Ozio, a witness for the prosecution, lied during the trial when he testified that he had no criminal record before his arrest. Ozio shared a cell with Whitton and testified that he heard Whitton admit to “‘stabbing.[ing] a little boy.’
Whitton filed Giglio’s claim that Ozio lied about hearing his confession, which the Florida Supreme Court dismissed. Years later, Whitton argued in his habeas petition that Ozio lied about not having a criminal record, but Thomas argued that the claim should have been filed in state court first. This means that Whitton may be procedurally barred from relief regardless of whether the Eleventh Circuit improperly relied on post-trial DNA evidence.
US Supreme Court Justices pose for their official portrait at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on Oct. 7, 2022. (Olivier Douliery/AFP)
“Whitton does not deny that federal court remedies existed,” Thomas wrote. “However, he never sought federal remedies for his claim based on Ozio’s description of his criminal record.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS PROGRAM
Thomas concluded his dissent by criticizing the Court for refusing to hear cases involving “law-abiding citizens,” including parents of Boston University students challenging an affirmative action policy that included unconstitutional racism, challenging university policies that allegedly interfered with “free speech,” and a lawsuit filed by the widow of an Air Force veteran who killed an Air Force member.
“This Court has often refused to grant relief to law-abiding Americans when it would be necessary, even after lower courts have clearly ignored what this Court was doing in ruling against them,” Thomas wrote.
