In a case that brings the convoluted legal and ethical practices surrounding Oklahoma’s death sentences to the fore, the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to review the case of Richard Glossip, a death row inmate seeking to overturn his conviction. Glossip was sentenced to death eight years ago for the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese, a crime that had no compelling evidence tying Glossip to it other than the testimony of a possibly compromised witness, Justin Sneed. In a strange turn of events, even the Oklahoma Attorney General, Gentner Drummond, supported Glossip’s petition for review, citing problematic prosecutorial conduct during Glossip’s trial.
It is unusual for the state’s Attorney General to question its system’s efficacy. However, commentary by the AG highlights issues around prosecutorial misconduct and “cumulative error.” The new information – previously hidden from the court and later revealed in prosecutor notes – unveiled that the key witness, Sneed, might have been under the psychiatric care of a professional while providing his testimony.
The core argument of the appeal is that Sneed, the handyman at the hotel where Glossip used to work and the murder occurred, lied about seeing a psychiatrist and about his diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Sneed was the one who testified saying Glossip paid him $10,000 to murder Van Treese. For his testimony, Sneed was spared a death penalty by the prosecutors.
An Amy Howe report on SCOTUSblog underlines independent counsel Rex Duncan’s report, recommending a new trial after finding that Glossip was not accorded a fair trial. Despite Duncan’s insistence and Drummond’s endorsement, the Oklahoma court rejected their plea to scrap the conviction.
Again highlighting the irregularity of this case, for the first time in the state history, Glossip’s request for clemency was turned down by the state’s Pardon and Parole Board, even though it had the backing of the attorney general.
Now, the final hope rests in the apex court as they deliberate the legality of Oklahoma suppressing key witness information and whether it violated Glossip’s constitutional rights. A critical issue under discussion here is regarding the excess burden Oklahoma courts have imposed on Glossip, requiring him to illustrate the harm done by the state’s suppression of potentially exculpatory evidence.
Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to review the appeal, Justice Neil Gorsuch’s participation (or lack thereof) is under scrutiny due to his involvement in one of Glossip’s earlier appeals when he was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.
While the case of Richard Glossip is not the only one on the Supreme Court’s docket, it has brought a considerable spotlight to the often divisive issue of capital punishment in America, sparking debates among legal professionals and the general public alike.