The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a substantial ruling on Tuesday, overturning the murder conviction and death penalty of Richard Glossip, an Oklahoma man who has consistently claimed his innocence in the 1997 murder of motel owner Barry Van Treese. The justices determined that Glossip’s original trial was flawed, speccifically in its prosecutorial failure to disclose critical evidence that could have supported his defense.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor articulated the court’s decision, stating, “Glossip is entitled to a new trial.” The ruling was backed by five justices, although Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, advocating to uphold Glossip’s conviction and sentence. Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested leaving the determination up to a state appeals court.
Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from participating in the case due to his prior involvement as an appeals court judge. The case garnered attention after both Glossip’s legal team and state officials agreed to pursue the conviction’s reversal, citing unfair trial practices. Oklahoma’s top criminal appeals court had previously upheld Glossip’s conviction even after the state aligned with him regarding trial fairness.
Richard Glossip was convicted in relation to a murder-for-hire scheme, a charge stemming from the 1997 killing of his former boss, Van Treese. Key to the state’s case was the testimony from Justin Sneed, who admitted to beating Van Treese to death but claimed he did so under Glossip’s promise of payment. Sneed, who received a life sentence in exchange for his testimony, was regarded as the prosecution’s primary witness against Glossip.
In a shift of perspective, Oklahoma’s Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a Republican, acknowledged new evidence suggesting Glossip did not receive a fair trial. Drummond clarified that he does not fully endorse Glossip’s innocence but signaled the possibility of a new trial. He indicated that the death penalty would not be sought if Glossip is retried.
Among Drummond’s concerns were revelations that prosecutors may have known Sneed was misleading about his mental health status and that vital evidence had been destroyed, including items that could have established Glossip’s innocence.
Glossip, who has faced multiple execution attempts, has previously endured the grim experience of receiving three last meals and has been married twice while on death row. Over the years, the court has intervened several times to halt his execution, most recently last year, after years of legal battles over lethal injection protocols.
