Thomas unloads on Court for helping convicted murderer but ignoring 'law-abiding citizens'

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, accused the Supreme Court of focusing on the wrong cases after the justices vacated a lower-court ruling in a Florida murder case over what he described as an "inconsequential foot fault" that would have had "no effect on the outcome of the case."

Thomas argued that Gary Whitton's bid 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 the overarching point of his dissent was a rebuke of the Court's priorities. He pointed to cases involving race, free speech and military families that the justices declined to hear as examples of disputes he believed were more deserving of the Court's attention.

"It is unfortunate that the Court chose to intervene at the request of a convicted murderer to correct the Eleventh Circuit's inconsequential foot fault," Thomas wrote in his dissent. "What makes it even worse is that the Court does so even while it refuses to correct far more consequential errors for law-abiding citizens."

In a 7-2 ruling, the Supreme Court determined that the Eleventh Circuit must reconsider whether to grant Whitton a new trial without considering DNA evidence discovered after the original trial. The evidence showed that blood stains found inside Whitton's boots belonged to James Maulden, who was found dead with multiple stab wounds in a motel room on Oct. 10, 1990. The night before, Whitton was seen with Maulden at a bank, where the victim withdrew the entire balance of his account.

SUPREME COURT TOSSES CONVICTION AND DEATH SENTENCE OF OKLAHOMA INMATE, ORDERS NEW TRIAL

The justices determined that the DNA evidence discovered through improved testing in 2002 was inconsequential because the original jury was unaware of it during the 1991 trial.

But Thomas deemed the Eleventh Circuit's reliance on the DNA testing results in its denial a "technicality" error.

"If the Eleventh Circuit erred at all in mentioning the DNA test results, it was harmless for at least two reasons. First, the court thoroughly examined the overwhelming evidence against Whitton, which was more than sufficient to justify its decision," Thomas wrote. "Second, Whitton had not even exhausted his claim in state court, so the Eleventh Circuit could not have ruled for him anyway."

JUSTICE THOMAS REBUKES SCOTUS FOR DENYING WIDOW’S CASE, SAYS IT LETS GOVERNMENT DODGE BLAME

Whitton's bid for a new trial is based on the discovery that Jake Ozio, a prosecution witness, lied during the trial when he testified that he did not have a criminal record prior to his arrest. Ozio shared a jail cell with Whitton and testified that he overheard Whitton confess to "‘stabb[ing] the bastard.’"

Whitton filed a Giglio claim alleging that Ozio lied about hearing his confession, which the Florida Supreme Court rejected. Years later, Whitton argued in his federal habeas proceedings that Ozio lied about not having a criminal record, but Thomas contended that claim should have first been exhausted in state court. This means Whitton may be procedurally barred from obtaining relief regardless of whether the Eleventh Circuit improperly relied on post-trial DNA evidence.

"Whitton does not deny that state-court remedies were available," Thomas wrote. "Yet, he never sought state remedies for his claim based on Ozio's characterization of his criminal record."

Thomas rounded out his dissent by criticizing the Court for declining to hear cases involving "law-abiding citizens," including parents of Boston University students challenging an affirmative-action policy they argue constitutes unconstitutional race discrimination, objections to university policies alleged to chill "free speech," and a lawsuit filed by the widow of an Air Force service member killed on the job.

"This Court routinely declines to provide relief to law-abiding Americans when it would actually matter, even after lower courts conspicuously flout this Court's precedents in ruling against them," Thomas wrote.