A divided Supreme Court took a significant step on Tuesday by ordering a new trial for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip. This decision comes after independent investigations revealed substantial prosecutorial misconduct, attracting widespread support for Glossip's long-running appeal.
Even Oklahoma’s top law enforcement official, a Republican, concurred with Glossip’s defense team, acknowledging that Glossip did not receive a fair trial for the 1997 killing. Both parties agreed that prosecutors suppressed vital evidence and failed to correct false testimony from the key witness against Glossip.
Despite these findings, Oklahoma’s top criminal court upheld Glossip’s death sentence, prompting the latest appeal. Glossip’s case has become a focal point in the national debate over the death penalty, which critics argue is unjust or unfairly applied.
Glossip, who has been scheduled for execution nine times, was just hours from being executed in 2015 when officials discovered they had received the wrong lethal drug. This error contributed to a six-year moratorium on executions in the state.
On Tuesday, five justices, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, ruled in favor of a new trial. They agreed that “ample evidence supports the attorney general’s confession of error.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority, stated, “We conclude that the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony” from the key witness. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner F. Drummond also acknowledged the unfair trial and expressed intentions to review the court’s ruling to ensure justice is secured for all involved.
The Supreme Court rarely grants relief to death row inmates or blocks state executions, making Tuesday’s decision noteworthy. However, it drew a fiery dissent from some conservative justices.
Justice Clarence Thomas accused his colleagues of bending the law “at every turn to rule” in Glossip’s favor, asserting that the Supreme Court lacks the power to override Oklahoma’s highest court. He suggested that a new hearing should have been ordered to resolve questions about evidence interpretation and allow the victim’s family an opportunity to be heard.
Glossip was convicted for commissioning Justin Sneed, a drug-addled handyman, to kill Barry Van Treese at the Best Budget Inn in Oklahoma City. Sneed’s testimony, the only direct evidence linking Glossip to the crime, was part of a plea agreement to avoid the death penalty himself.
An independent investigation commissioned by Oklahoma legislators concluded that Glossip’s conviction should be set aside. Another investigation by the state attorney general reached the same conclusion, revealing previously withheld documents that could have impacted the trial’s outcome.
The documents indicated that Sneed suffered from bipolar disorder, which, combined with drug use, could have led to impulsive violence. They also revealed that Sneed falsely claimed at trial that he was not receiving treatment for mental health issues, a claim not corrected by the prosecution.
The Supreme Court’s decision emphasized that the credibility of Sneed’s testimony was crucial to the prosecution’s case against Glossip. The justices noted that no other witness or physical evidence supported the claim that Glossip orchestrated the killing.
Glossip's attorney, Don Knight, hailed the ruling as a “victory for justice and fairness in our judicial system,” emphasizing that prosecutors cannot hide critical evidence or allow witnesses to lie to a jury. Glossip will now have the opportunity for the fair trial he was previously denied.
