According to lawyer Christopher G. Michel, the case against Richard Glossip is clear-cut. Michel asserts that Glossip, who has been on Oklahoma’s death row for over 20 years for the brutal 1997 murder of his boss, is unequivocally guilty, and there is no justification for the U.S. Supreme Court to halt his execution.
Moreover, Michel contends that the court should compel Oklahoma to proceed with an execution that even its attorney general opposes.
Typically, a state’s attorney general would advocate for an execution to proceed before the high court. However, since assuming office in January 2023, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond has taken unprecedented steps to spare Glossip’s life. Drummond believes that Glossip’s conviction is tainted by prosecutorial misconduct to an extent that warrants overturning it.
Drummond conveyed this sentiment to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals last year when he urged them to vacate Glossip’s conviction and order a new trial. Despite Drummond’s plea, the court rejected his proposal, paving the way for Glossip’s execution. Glossip sought intervention from the Supreme Court, with Drummond joining in the effort. As a result, there was no one from Oklahoma advocating for Glossip’s execution. That’s when Michel stepped in.
Michel, a partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and co-chair of its national appellate practice, was appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts to represent the side previously unrepresented in the case. Michel, a seasoned Supreme Court litigator with strong conservative credentials, was deemed suitable for the task.
Oral arguments for the case are anticipated to occur in the fall, with a decision likely by spring 2025. The court’s ruling could determine Glossip’s fate and have significant implications for criminal defendants nationwide. Michel’s arguments challenge established protections against prosecutorial misconduct and the courts’ duty to address it, potentially disregarding long-standing legal safeguards against wrongful convictions.
A Significant Omission
Richard Glossip was twice convicted and sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese at a Best Budget Inn owned by Van Treese on the outskirts of Oklahoma City. There was no physical evidence linking Glossip, the motel manager, to the crime. The case relied heavily on the testimony of Justin Sneed, a 19-year-old maintenance man who confessed to killing Van Treese but claimed Glossip masterminded the crime. Sneed avoided the death penalty by testifying against Glossip and received a life sentence instead. Glossip has consistently maintained his innocence, and evidence supporting his wrongful conviction has surfaced over the years.
New evidence supports Glossip’s claim that Sneed, a drug user prone to violence, murdered Van Treese and framed Glossip. Witnesses have contradicted the state’s portrayal of Sneed as a follower under Glossip’s influence, depicting him as capable of committing the murder independently.
In August 2022, the state released previously undisclosed case documents revealing severe prosecutorial misconduct. The records indicate that Sneed provided false statements during Glossip’s second trial, and prosecutors knew about the inaccuracies but failed to rectify his testimony.
While in jail, Sneed was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and prescribed lithium to manage it. However, during his testimony against Glossip, Sneed denied ever seeing a psychiatrist or knowing why he was given lithium. This omission was significant as Sneed’s mental health and drug use could have affected his ability to recall events accurately, casting doubt on his testimony.
Glossip’s lawyers had been seeking access to Sneed’s mental health records for years, but the state had blocked their efforts. Recently released case documents revealed notes from a meeting between Sneed and the prosecutor that hinted at Sneed’s diagnosis and treatment, contradicting his testimony. The notes indicated that Sneed had indeed seen a psychiatrist and been prescribed lithium, which he had failed to disclose truthfully.
This discrepancy formed the basis of Drummond’s motion to vacate Glossip’s conviction, suggesting that the jury may have been misled by Sneed’s false testimony. The Supreme Court is now considering whether the state’s failure to disclose this information violated legal principles designed to protect defendants and ensure witness honesty.
The case touches on principles from Brady v. Maryland, Napue v. Illinois, and Kyles v. Whitley, emphasizing the importance of prosecutors disclosing exculpatory evidence, ensuring witness truthfulness, and considering the impact of violations on a case. Glossip’s conviction may have been influenced by the state’s failure to disclose crucial information about Sneed’s mental health and treatment, raising questions about the integrity of the trial. On January 1, 2023, an interview took place in Oklahoma City, as captured in the photo by AP/Sue Ogrocki.
As described by Michel, Drummond and Glossip’s legal team aim to challenge Glossip’s conviction based on the “Dr. Trumpet” note and Sneed’s misleading trial testimony. However, this overlooks the broader argument made by the lawyers. They assert that these elements are just part of a larger pattern of violations by the state to strengthen the case against Glossip unfairly.
Recent disclosures of eight boxes of hidden materials to Glossip’s defense team revealed a wealth of new evidence. Among these materials was a letter from Sneed to his public defender indicating his desire to retract his testimony against Glossip. Additionally, documents showed collaboration between Smothermon and Sneed’s attorney to adjust Sneed’s testimony to align with forensic evidence.
Despite multiple appeals in Oklahoma, Glossip’s lawyers have been unsuccessful in getting the court to consider the cumulative impact of prosecutorial misconduct. This failure to address the broader context of violations undermines the essence of the Kyles case, which emphasizes a comprehensive review of evidence.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has dismissed the evidence withheld from Glossip’s team without a thorough examination. Glossip’s defense has requested an evidentiary hearing, which has been denied by the court. However, Michel’s brief hints at the possibility of such a hearing, offering a potential path forward for the Supreme Court to avoid making an immediate decision on Glossip’s case.
If the Supreme Court proceeds with the case and sets a precedent that diminishes legal standards, legal scholars warn of grave national consequences. They argue that upholding the Oklahoma court’s decision could lead to an increase in false testimonies and undermine public trust in the judiciary’s integrity.
Overall, the case of Glossip presents a complex legal dilemma that calls for a careful reexamination of the evidence and a consideration of its broader implications on the justice system. Please rewrite this sentence.
Source link
