The Supreme Court’s Potential Decision to Grant Convicted Oklahoma Killer Glossip Another Chance to Avoid Execution

Despite decades of failed death row appeals, Oklahoma inmate Richard Glossip may get another shot in court at overturning his conviction after a majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices indicated Wednesday that he might not have gotten a fair trial.

While the court’s conservative majority rarely agrees to hear capital cases, much less grant relief, Glossip’s plea has drawn unique attention from the justices because the state’s Republican Attorney General agrees that the trial was “deeply flawed.”

The state’s highest court, by contrast, has ruled that all of Glossip’s appeals have been exhausted and that claims of prosecutorial misconduct would not have changed the outcome.

During oral arguments, the justices wrestled first with whether the court even had jurisdiction to intervene in the state case. They also grappled with whether suppression of evidence and the allowing of a key witness to lie on the stand violated Glossip’s civil rights.

Glossip, 61, was convicted in 1998 for ordering the killing of his then-boss Barry Van Treese. The actual killer, Justin Sneed, testified in exchange for a life sentence that Glossip had paid him $10,000 to do it. Glossip has maintained his innocence, but no court has granted his appeal.

It was discovered after trial that Sneed had been taking lithium to treat bipolar disorder, even though on the stand he denied mental illness. Several independent reviews suggest the prosecutor may have known Sneed was lying but did not correct the testimony.

Several justices suggested they were uncomfortable with backing an execution under the circumstances.

“The whole case depended on [Sneed’s] credibility,” noted Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who said he was “having some trouble” with the idea that the mental illness revelations wouldn’t have affected the jury.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that acknowledgment of a bipolar condition could have raised the possibility “that [Sneed’s] use of drugs would have led to impulsive and violent behavior.”

“If you can show that he lied on the stand when he said ‘I never saw a psychiatrist and I didn’t get a prescription from the psychiatrist,'” said Justice Elena Kagan, “that seems pretty material to me. I mean, it’s just your one witness has been exposed as a liar.”

At the same time, several of the court’s conservatives — most notably Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – sharply disagreed.

“Do you really think it would make that much of a difference to the jury?” asked Chief Justice John Roberts about details of Sneed’s psychiatric condition.

“It very well could have made a significant difference in the outcome of the case,” replied Glossip attorney and former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court’s junior justice and a member of the liberal wing, hinted at a middle ground approach: ordering an Oklahoma court to more closely examine evidence of alleged prosecutorial misconduct before ruling on a new trial.

“It’s my understanding that there’s never been a court determination of any of these facts,” Jackson said. “Why we wouldn’t, at the minimum, have some sort of requirement that a court make a finding about these things?”

Only eight justices heard arguments on Wednesday after Justice Neil Gorsuch — a former appeals court judge who had connection to the case — recused himself. They can vote to overturn Glossip’s conviction, uphold it, or return the case to a state court for further proceedings. A 4-4 tie would let the Oklahoma decision stand and clear the way for an execution.

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond has said he does not believe Glossip is innocent but that a new trial is imperative to upholding the credibility of the judicial system.

“The death penalty doesn’t turn on, you know, ideology or politics. It should turn on the rule of law,” he told ABC News in an interview. “This has been a wildly unpopular position for me to take, but it’s the right thing to do.”

Glossip was first convicted in 1998 and again in 2004 after a state appeals court ordered a new trial. He has lost appeals at the state clemency board and also had clemency denied by the governor.

In a separate Supreme Court case in 2015, Glossip unsuccessfully challenged Oklahoma’s lethal injection drug protocol. He has been scheduled for execution nine times and served his “last meal” three times.

The Van Treese family told the high court in a friend-of-the-court filing that it wants Glossip’s conviction and sentence upheld.

A decision in the case is expected by early 2025.

The Supreme Court’s Potential Decision to Grant Convicted Oklahoma Killer Glossip Another Chance to Avoid Execution

Richard Glossip, a convicted killer on Oklahoma’s death row, may have another chance to avoid execution as the Supreme Court considers his case. Glossip was convicted of orchestrating the murder of his boss, Barry Van Treese, in 1997. However, there have been questions raised about the evidence used to convict him and whether he received a fair trial.

Glossip’s case gained national attention in recent years after it was featured in the popular podcast “Serial” and the documentary “The Innocent Man.” Both pieces of media raised doubts about Glossip’s guilt and highlighted potential flaws in the justice system that led to his conviction.

One of the key pieces of evidence used against Glossip was the testimony of Justin Sneed, the man who actually carried out the murder. Sneed claimed that Glossip had hired him to kill Van Treese, but there have been inconsistencies in his story and allegations that he may have been coerced into implicating Glossip.

In addition, Glossip’s defense team has argued that he did not receive effective legal representation during his trial. They claim that his lawyer failed to adequately investigate the case and present evidence that could have exonerated him.

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear Glossip’s case is significant as it could potentially lead to a new trial or even his release from death row. If the court finds that there were errors in his original trial that violated his constitutional rights, Glossip could be granted a new opportunity to prove his innocence.

The case has sparked a larger debate about the death penalty and the potential for wrongful convictions. Supporters of Glossip argue that his case highlights the flaws in the justice system and the need for reform to prevent innocent people from being executed.

On the other hand, opponents of granting Glossip another chance to avoid execution argue that he has already had multiple appeals and opportunities to present evidence in his defense. They believe that he was rightfully convicted and sentenced to death for his role in the murder of Van Treese.

As the Supreme Court considers Glossip’s case, the outcome will have far-reaching implications for the criminal justice system and the use of the death penalty in the United States. It remains to be seen whether Glossip will be granted another chance to prove his innocence or if he will ultimately face execution.