In a landmark decision on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the murder conviction and death sentence of Richard Glossip, an inmate from Oklahoma who has long stood by his claim of innocence. For nearly 26 years, Glossip, now 62, has been incarcerated, accused of playing a key role in the 1997 murder of a motel owner in Oklahoma City. Glossip’s wife, Lea, expressed profound relief at the decision, calling it “an answered prayer.”
The justices agreed that the prosecutors had allowed a crucial witness to provide false testimony, thereby infringing upon Glossip’s constitutional right to a fair trial. The unique case saw an unusual alignment between Glossip’s defense attorneys and Oklahoma’s Republican Attorney General, both advocating for a new trial for Glossip. “Glossip is entitled to a new trial,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor explained on behalf of five justices.
Dissent came from Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who believed the conviction and death sentence should remain, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett preferred that a state appeals court determine the next steps. Thomas further contended that the ruling failed to take into account the interests of the victim, Barry Van Treese’s family, who have expressed a desire to see Glossip executed.
Don Knight, Glossip’s attorney, hailed the court’s decision as a triumph for justice, highlighting that prosecutors had concealed vital evidence from the defense. “Today was a victory for justice and fairness in our judicial system,” Knight stated. He emphasized that Glossip, who has proclaimed his innocence for 27 years, will finally have the opportunity for a fair trial.
Attorney General Gentner Drummond noted that despite the ruling, Glossip would likely remain incarcerated until the state decides whether or not to pursue a retrial. Drummond expressed his personal doubts about Glossip’s innocence but nonetheless supported the court’s judgment. He acknowledged the challenges of retrying the case so many years later.
Discussions on future proceedings are to be held between Drummond and Oklahoma County District Attorney Vicki Behenna, who has indicated reluctance to seek the death penalty again. Historically, Oklahoma’s criminal appeals court upheld Glossip’s conviction and sentence multiple times, even when the state’s stance changed in his favor.
Glossip was condemned for his involvement in Van Treese’s death, a crime made infamous for allegedly being a murder-for-hire scheme. During the case, Justin Sneed, who admitted to committing the murder, testified that Glossip orchestrated the crime in return for $10,000. Sneed, who played a pivotal role against Glossip, received life imprisonment.
A recent discovery of new evidence led to a reevaluation of the fairness of Glossip’s trial. Drummond found information indicating that testimony concerning Sneed’s mental health and motivations was false, and significant evidence, like motel receipts and other items, was destroyed, potentially affecting the case’s outcome.
Throughout the years, Oklahoma has tried to execute Glossip on nine occasions, leading to three “last meal” preparations and two marriages under the shadow of execution. The Supreme Court addressed two main issues in deciding the case: whether Glossip’s rights were violated by withholding evidence and whether the Oklahoma court’s ruling, made post the state’s position change, should stand.
Justice Barrett, while agreeing with the majority to nullify the appellate decision, was not fully convinced of deliberate prosecutor misconduct regarding Sneed’s false testimony. The Supreme Court previously intervened in 2015 to stop an execution attempt under a different legal context.
Glossip first faced conviction in 1998, which was later overturned, leading to another trial and conviction in 2004. This decision represents a significant moment in Glossip’s longstanding fight to clear his name.
