At the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday morning, Chief Justice John Roberts focused on whether Richard Glossip would have been convicted and sentenced to death row if the jury had known that the star witness against him had lied on the stand.
Roberts questioned Seth Waxman, a former U.S. solicitor general representing Glossip, about the impact of this revelation on the jury’s decision. This inquiry set the stage for a lengthy oral argument in Glossip v. Oklahoma, where both Glossip’s attorneys and Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond urged the court to revisit Glossip’s conviction and order a new trial in Oklahoma City.
Drummond, a staunch supporter of Oklahoma’s death penalty, has surprisingly advocated for a new trial for Glossip, citing the false testimony as a critical factor in the original conviction.
During Glossip’s 2004 trial, key witness Justin Sneed, who accused Glossip of coercing him to commit murder, lied about receiving psychiatric treatment. His deception, coupled with the prosecution’s failure to correct it, raised serious constitutional concerns regarding Glossip’s case.
The Supreme Court intervened by appointing an external attorney, Christopher Michel, to argue in favor of upholding Glossip’s conviction. Despite Michel’s defense, Justices Kagan and Kavanaugh expressed skepticism about Sneed’s credibility and the potential impact of his falsehood on the jury’s decision.
As the court deliberates, the fate of Glossip’s execution hangs in the balance. If the court upholds the conviction, Glossip could face execution.
Credit: Courtesy of Joe Berlinger; Screenshot: The Intercept
Confession of Error
Richard Glossip faced two convictions and death sentences for the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese in an Oklahoma City motel. Despite the absence of physical evidence linking him to the crime, Glossip was incriminated primarily by Justin Sneed’s testimony. Sneed confessed to killing Van Treese but claimed Glossip orchestrated the act, leading to his own immunity from the death penalty.
Throughout multiple execution dates, Glossip has steadfastly maintained his innocence. Recent investigations by Reed Smith uncovered compelling evidence of his wrongful conviction, including Sneed’s potential recantation and testimonies challenging the prosecution’s portrayal of him as a passive follower.
Despite mounting evidence, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has rejected calls for a retrial and dismissed new witnesses. Drummond, after conducting an independent inquiry, sought to vacate Glossip’s conviction in a rare move to rectify the miscarriage of justice.
He presented a confession of error in court, a rare move that indicated the top law enforcement officer in the state had lost faith in the conviction. Despite this, the court denied Drummond’s request.
The core of Drummond’s argument and the current dispute before the Supreme Court revolved around handwritten notes that prosecutors had failed to disclose to Glossip’s defense. These notes from a meeting between Sneed and prosecutor Connie Smothermon hinted at a cover-up regarding Sneed’s mental health treatment. Sneed had denied seeing a psychiatrist, but the notes suggested otherwise, raising questions about his honesty under oath.
During the proceedings, Justice Clarence Thomas focused on defending the prosecutors rather than addressing potential misconduct that could have affected Glossip’s trial. Justice Samuel Alito appeared disinterested in the case, suggesting that the Oklahoma court’s decision to uphold Glossip’s conviction was final and clear.
However, some of their colleagues, including Justice Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticized the Oklahoma court’s decision as confusing and flawed. Jackson proposed sending the case back for further review, emphasizing the need to clarify factual discrepancies. The outcome of the case remained uncertain, especially with Justice Neil Gorsuch recusing himself, leaving the Supreme Court with only eight justices to decide on the matter.
A loudspeaker blasted a “Schoolhouse Rock”-inspired song outlining the project’s goals and urging people to vote.
One of the banners displayed “Project 2025 Will Increase the Death Penalty.” She closely followed the events in the courtroom. “Six Catholics who stripped us of our right to bodily autonomy, allowed Marcellus Williams to be executed,” she exclaimed. She viewed Williams’s case, where a Missouri prosecutor attempted to overturn a conviction marred by prosecutorial misconduct — as part of the Supreme Court’s ongoing radicalization.
Alito has emerged as the face of the court’s authoritarian shift. He has been pushing for executions regardless of circumstances, even in cases with troubling doubts of innocence. Alito was the one who penned the opinion the last time Glossip was before the court, leading a challenge to Oklahoma’s lethal injection process. Despite evidence of the risk of inhumane deaths, Alito argued that “because capital punishment is constitutional, there must be a constitutional method to carry it out.” This decision resulted in Oklahoma’s botched attempt to execute Glossip in 2015, halted only at the last moment when officials realized they had the wrong drug.
Nearly ten years later, Don Knight, Glossip’s dedicated attorney, was cautiously optimistic after the hearings. “We were pleased that the Supreme Court allowed us to present this case,” Knight remarked. “We believe in fair trials for all individuals in this nation. We firmly believe Mr. Glossip deserves a fair trial, and we hope the court proceeds to grant him a new, just trial.”
