Supreme Court seems likely to give Oklahoma death row inmate a new day in court
Source: Associated Press
Supreme Court seems likely to give Oklahoma death row inmate a new day in court
By MARK SHERMAN
Updated 12:59 PM EDT, October 9, 2024
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court appeared likely Wednesday to give Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip at least another day in court in his long quest to throw out his murder conviction and death sentence. ... The justices heard arguments in a case that has produced a rare alliance in which lawyers for Glossip and the state argued that the high court should overturn Glossip’s conviction and death sentence because he did not get a fair trial. ... The victim’s relatives have told the high court that they want to see Glossip executed.
Oklahoma’s top criminal appeals court has repeatedly upheld the conviction and sentence, even after the state sided with Glossip. ... The justices seemed unlikely to affirm the Oklahoma court, after arguments that lasted one and three quarters hours. ... But precisely what the court would do was less clear. The justices could throw out the conviction, which would take Glossip off of death row. ... Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who attended Wednesday’s session, has conceded the trial was unfair. Drummond, a Republican, has said Glossip could face a new trial in the 1997 killing in Oklahoma City of his former boss, motel owner Barry Van Treese, in what prosecutors have alleged was a murder-for-hire scheme.
The justices also could, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested, order state courts to conduct a new hearing to weigh claims that prosecutors suppressed evidence. ... Only eight justices are hearing the case and a 4-4 tie would affirm the Oklahoma court ruling. Justice Neil Gorsuch is not taking part, presumably because he participated in it at an earlier stage when he was an appeals court judge. ... At least five justices voted last year to block efforts to execute Glossip while his case played out.
Glossip has always maintained his innocence. Another man, Justin Sneed, admitted robbing Van Treese and beating him to death with a baseball bat but testified he only did so after Glossip promised to pay him $10,000. Sneed received a life sentence in exchange for his testimony and was the key witness against Glossip. ... But evidence that emerged only last year persuaded Drummond. ... Among Drummond’s concerns are that prosecutors suppressed evidence about Sneed’s psychiatric condition that might have undermined his testimony. Drummond also has cited a box of evidence in the case that was destroyed that might have helped Glossip’s defense.
{snip}
Read more: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-oklahoma-execution-glossip-ccb741dd711d4ccd01ea5f4b4676336c
= new reply since forum marked as read
Richard Glossip’s case has attracted bipartisan support after the state’s top law enforcement official revealed prosecutorial misconduct.
Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, pictured in a photo taken by his attorney in 2016, is asking the Supreme Court to reverse his conviction in a 1997 murder-for-hire plot. (Don Knight/Reuters)
By Ann E. Marimow
October 9, 2024 at 2:05 p.m. EDT
The Supreme Court appeared closely divided Wednesday over whether to order a new trial for Oklahoma death-row inmate Richard Glossip, whose case has attracted support from across the political spectrum after independent investigations revealed prosecutorial misconduct.
Glossip’s long-running appeal is highly unusual, in that Oklahoma’s top law enforcement official agrees with Glossip’s defense attorneys that he did not receive a fair trial for a 1997 killing. Both sides say prosecutors suppressed evidence and elicited false testimony from a key witness also implicated in the murder.
Oklahoma’s top criminal court nevertheless upheld the death sentence for Glossip, 61, leading to the Supreme Court case known as Glossip v. Oklahoma.
At oral argument on Wednesday, a majority of justices — conservatives as well as liberals — expressed concerns about the state court ruling and about whether Glossip received a fair trial. But it was unclear after nearly two hours of discussion whether at least five justices were open to giving Glossip a do-over. Some floated the possibility of ordering a hearing to resolve factual disputes such as the meaning of a prosecutor’s cryptic notes and what was known about the key witness’s mental health.
{snip}
Mark Berman contributed to this report.
By Ann Marimow
Ann Marimow covers the Supreme Court for The Washington Post. She joined The Post in 2005, and has spent a decade writing about legal affairs and the federal judiciary. She previously covered state government and politics in California, New Hampshire and Maryland.follow on X @amarimow