Richard Glossip, now 62, has spent 27 years behind bars, predominantly on Oklahoma’s death row, awaiting his fate through nine separate execution dates. During this time, he has even endured the ritual of being served three “last meals.” Recently, in a surprising turn of events, the U.S. Supreme Court mandated a new trial, setting aside both his murder conviction and his death sentence for the 1997 murder of his former employer, Barry Van Treese, in what was claimed to be a murder-for-hire scheme.
Throughout, Glossip has steadfastly proclaimed his innocence, despite Justin Sneed, another individual involved, confessing to robbing and fatally assaulting Van Treese with a baseball bat. Sneed testified that Glossip promised him $10,000 for committing the murder, making his testimony crucial. Consequently, Sneed received a life sentence for his role in the crime.
The Supreme Court’s decision highlighted several prosecutorial lapses. The majority opinion indicated that the prosecution failed to correct known false statements made by Sneed, specifically regarding his psychiatric conditions and use of lithium, a mood stabilizer. According to Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s opinion, five justices agreed that addressing Sneed’s dishonesty would have affected his credibility and suggested he was willing to commit perjury. Furthermore, additional misconduct, such as tampering with testimony, destroying evidence, and withholding witness information, was noted as diminishing the confidence in the trial’s verdict.
Following the high court’s ruling, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond announced plans to retain Glossip in custody while prosecution deliberates on whether to proceed with a retrial. Drummond, a Republican, aims to collaborate with Oklahoma County District Attorney Vicki Behenna, a Democrat, to determine whether to pursue the death penalty again, opt for life imprisonment, or consider lesser charges like accessory after the fact.
Despite the court’s decision, Drummond expressed skepticism regarding Glossip’s innocence. Given the elapsed time since the crime, retrial proceedings could present significant challenges. Behenna has previously indicated her reluctance to pursue the death penalty, an outlook shared by Drummond, who expressed doubts about the facts of Glossip’s case qualifying for such a sentence.
Glossip’s nearness to execution dates has been perilously close. In 2015, his execution was set to occur, and he was just steps away from the procedure when a drug mix-up halted proceedings. This confusion arose after officials discovered that the drugs on hand did not align with the protocols for lethal injection, subsequently prompting a lengthy pause in executions within the state following an earlier botched attempt.
The victim, Barry Van Treese’s family, has long believed that Glossip should face execution for his purported role in the slaying. Though a recently attempted contact with Ken Van Treese, Barry’s brother, went unanswered, family members have persistently argued for upholding Glossip’s conviction and sentence.
Attorney Paul Cassell, representing the Van Treese family, communicated in a brief last year their wishes for Glossip’s conviction to stand, recounting the protracted wait they have endured for justice over more than 10,000 days. Despite recent developments, the family maintains that Glossip should be held accountable as originally judged.
