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."