Supreme Court hears case of Oklahoma death row inmate
The Supreme Court on Monday decided to decide whether Richard Glossip, a death row inmate in Oklahoma, deserves a new trial in light of newly disclosed evidence and an extraordinary concession from the state's Republican attorney general.
Mr. Glossip was convicted in 1998 of arranging the death of his employer, the owner of an Oklahoma City motel. Two independent investigations have questioned his guilt, and he has received support from celebrities like Kim Kardashian and state lawmakers from both political parties.
The state's attorney general, Gentner F. Drummond, told the judges that the state had “reached the difficult but essential conclusion that Glossip's conviction is unsustainable and a new trial is necessary.”
He added“The injustice of allowing a death penalty to be carried out when the conviction was caused by the government's own admitted failings would be virtually unfathomable.”
Lawyers call such statements “admissions of error,” and courts generally attach great importance to them. In May, after hearing from Mr Drummond, the High Court halted Mr Glossip's execution while the judges considered whether to hear his appeal.
Mr. Drummond's briefs were notable for a second reason: The lead lawyer representing the state was Paul D. Clement, who was attorney general in the George W. Bush administration and is a star at the Supreme Court bar , after conducting more than 100 advocacy sessions. cases before the judges.
The court's conservative majority is generally skeptical of appeals by death row inmates, appearing to view them as products of litigation gamesmanship designed to delay executions indefinitely. However, last January the court ordered Areli Escobar, a death row inmate in Texas, a new opportunity to challenge his beliefs in light of a prosecutor's admission of error following the discovery of flawed DNA evidence.
Mr. Glossip, 60, was convicted on the testimony of, in the words of one of the Oklahoma Supreme Court's rulings, “the state's indispensable witness,” a handyman named Justin Sneed. The handyman pleaded guilty to murdering motel owner Barry Van Treese by beating him to death with a baseball bat in 1997.
Mr. Sneed, who received a life sentence, testified that Mr. Glossip, the motel manager, ordered him to kill Mr. Van Treese.
Newly released documents contradicted Mr. Sneed's testimony about whether he had been treated by a psychiatrist and appeared to show that he had been diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder.
“When I was arrested,” Mr. Sneed testified, “I asked for some Sudafed because I had a cold, but shortly afterward they gave me lithium for some reason.”
“I don't know why,” he added. “I've never seen a psychiatrist or anything.”
In fact, the state letter read: “Sneed had been treated by a psychiatrist in 1997. Moreover, he was not prescribed lithium for a cold. Instead, he was prescribed it to treat his severe psychiatric condition, which, combined with his known methamphetamine use, would have impacted his credibility and memory, as well as causing him to become potentially violent or suffer from paranoia.”
Prosecutors had reason to know that Mr. Sneed's testimony was false, the state's statement said. “Despite this knowledge,” the report said, “the State allowed Snee to effectively conceal his psychiatric condition and the reason for his prior lithium prescription through materially false testimony to the jury.”
Mr. Drummond had made similar arguments before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest court for criminal cases, but that court unanimously rejected his admission of error. The Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board deadlocked in a 2-to-2 vote on Mr. Glossip's request for a recommendation of clemency.
That of the Supreme Court summary order for review The case noted that Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, who had heard one aspect of the case as an appeals court judge, was removed from office. The order also directed the attorneys to indicate in their brief whether the Supreme Court had authority to review the Oklahoma court's ruling in light of the possibility that it was based entirely on state law.
If the Supreme Court follows its usual practices, it will hear arguments in Glossip v. Oklahoma, No. 22-7466, during its next term, which begins in October.