On Wednesday, U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed concerns about a judicial decision allowing Richard Glossip’s execution to proceed as they considered the Oklahoma death row inmate’s appeal regarding his conviction for a 1997 murder-for-hire.
During the arguments, the justices examined whether an Oklahoma court appropriately evaluated newly revealed information that Glossip’s lawyers claimed would have strengthened his defense. Oklahoma’s Republican attorney general, Gentner Drummond, argued that prosecutors wrongfully withheld this information.
Glossip requested that the justices overturn his conviction and grant him a new trial after the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld his death sentence despite the discovery of potentially exculpatory evidence in an independent investigation Drummond ordered last year. Drummond supports Glossip’s appeal.
Now 61, Glossip faced conviction for commissioning the murder of Barry Van Treese, who owned the Best Budget Inn motel in Oklahoma City where Glossip served as manager. All parties agree that maintenance worker Justin Sneed fatally beat Van Treese with a baseball bat. Sneed confessed to the murder but avoided the death penalty by accepting a plea deal that required him to testify that Glossip paid him $10,000 to commit the crime.
Prosecutors secured Glossip’s murder conviction primarily based on Sneed’s testimony, despite Sneed’s struggles with methamphetamine addiction. Glossip admitted to helping Sneed cover up the murder after it occurred but denied any prior knowledge of Sneed’s plan or any encouragement to kill Van Treese.
Last year, the Supreme Court halted Glossip’s scheduled execution while his appeal continued. Drummond disclosed evidence, including a prosecutor’s handwritten notes from a meeting with Sneed, which raised doubts about Sneed’s credibility, according to Glossip’s lawyers. They argued that they remained unaware of Sneed’s psychiatric treatment for bipolar disorder immediately following his arrest and that prosecutors failed to correct Sneed’s false claim about his prescription for lithium.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman, representing Glossip, asserted that Glossip’s conviction relied solely on Sneed’s testimony and violated his constitutional right to due process. “He (Sneed) lied to the jury about his history of psychiatric treatment,” Waxman stated, adding that the prosecution suppressed crucial evidence and did not correct Sneed’s false denial.
Since Oklahoma’s attorney general supports Glossip’s appeal, the Supreme Court appointed private attorney Christopher Michel to argue for upholding Glossip’s conviction. Michel sought to counter Waxman’s claims regarding the significance of the newly disclosed evidence.
“Liberal Justice Elena Kagan told Michel, ‘Your one witness has been exposed as a liar,’ adding, ‘False is false.’” Michel responded that the jury would not have changed its decision even if it had known about Sneed’s bipolar disorder and his lies.
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed confusion, stating, “I’m having some trouble… understanding that when the whole case depended on his credibility.” Both liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and conservative Justice Samuel Alito suggested returning the case to a lower court for an evidentiary hearing to evaluate the new information from Drummond.
Drummond became an unexpected ally of Glossip after his investigation led him to conclude that prosecutors hid evidence that could have led to an acquittal. Although Drummond believes Glossip’s role in covering up the murder makes him at least an “accessory after the fact,” he finds Glossip’s murder conviction too flawed to defend.
Michel urged the justices to dismiss the case, allowing Glossip to pursue state law clemency or other available relief. He requested that, if the Supreme Court decides on the legal merits, it should defer to the Oklahoma court’s ruling, which upheld Glossip’s conviction based on state law limiting post-conviction legal efforts.
Kagan raised concerns about the Oklahoma court’s ruling, describing its review of legal merits and complex procedural issues as “very confusing.” She remarked, “I mean everything was intertwined with everything else.” In response to Michel’s comment about her critique of the opinion, Kagan quipped, “I haven’t even started,” prompting laughter in the courtroom.
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas questioned why Waxman had not interviewed two prosecutors involved in the case. He stated, “Not only because their reputations are being impugned, but they are central to this case; it would seem that an interview of these two prosecutors would be central.”
The justices expect to issue their ruling by the end of June. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in considering Glossip’s appeal, likely due to his previous involvement with the case while serving on a lower court.
