Jump to content
  • Sign Up
×
×
  • Create New...

Richard Glossip, death row inmate who’s had 3 last meals, returns to Supreme Court in bid for new trial


Pelican Press
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Diamond Member

This is the hidden content, please

Richard Glossip, ****** row inmate who’s had 3 last meals, returns to Supreme Court in bid for new trial

Washington — It’s been nearly a decade since the Supreme Court first took up Oklahoma ****** row inmate Richard Glossip’s unsuccessful challenge to the state’s method of **********. On Wednesday, Glossip will be back at the Supreme Court, this time as the justices consider whether to toss out his conviction altogether and grant him a new trial.

In the 20 years since Glossip, 61, was convicted in a *******-for-hire scheme and sentenced to ******, he has had nine ********** dates scheduled and eaten his “last meal” three times. But in each of those instances, his executions were put off and his life spared.

The most recent reprieve came last year, when the high court agreed to block his ****** by lethal injection. Months later, the justices took up his bid for a new trial after Oklahoma’s top law enforcement official argued his conviction and sentence should not stand.

When the Supreme Court convenes for ***** arguments, lawyers for Attorney General Gentner Drummond and Glossip, both represented by former solicitors general, will urge the justices to grant his bid for a new trial. The court appointed an outside lawyer, Christopher Michel, to argue in favor of upholding Glossip’s conviction and ****** sentence.

Drummond, a ***********, has argued in court papers that the state recently uncovered evidence that had been suppressed, revealing not only that prosecutors’ key witness against Glossip lied on the stand, but that they “knowingly elicited” his false testimony and ******* to correct the record.

“Our system of justice places awesome powers and responsibilities in the hands of prosecutors. When those prosecutors themselves recognize that they have overstepped, that judgment cannot be dismissed as just another litigation position,” Drummond told the Supreme Court in a

This is the hidden content, please
.

Glossip’s conviction and the attorney general’s bid for relief


Richard Glossip in a 2021 photo provided by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Oklahoma Department of Corrections via AP


Glossip was convicted in the 1997 ******** of Barry Van Treese, the owner of the Oklahoma City motel where he worked. He was found guilty in two different trials (his first conviction was overturned because of ineffective assistance of counsel). In both, prosecutors relied on the testimony of his co-defendant, Justin Sneed, who claimed Glossip paid him $10,000 to ******* Van Treese.

Sneed admitted to robbing and bludgeoning Van Treese and was sentenced to life in prison. Glossip has denied involvement in the ******* and maintained his innocence.

During his second trial, Sneed told the lead prosecutor that he had never seen a psychiatrist, but was given lithium after he was arrested. Years later, in 2022, the state unearthed handwritten notes from the prosecutor in a banker’s box, which Drummond said called into question Sneed’s credibility as a witness.

The notes indicated that Sneed told the prosecutor he was given lithium after seeing a jailhouse psychiatrist and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, according to court papers. But neither his diagnosis nor treatment by the psychiatrist were disclosed to Glossip’s defense team, indicating that the prosecutor elicited false testimony on the matter, Drummond wrote in court filings.

In light of the findings, the attorney general disclosed the box’s materials to Glossip and hired an independent counsel to review the case. The

This is the hidden content, please
, which concluded in April 2023, found that if the defense knew that Sneed had been diagnosed as bipolar and prescribed lithium, they could’ve “impeached Sneed’s credibility, memory and truthfulness.” The independent counsel concluded that Glossip was “deprived of a fair trial.”

The state agreed that some of the errors committed during the trial rendered Glossip’s conviction and capital sentence flawed, and requested the Oklahoma Court of ********* Appeals set aside his conviction and order a new trial. 

But the state court denied the relief and ordered the state to ******** Glossip. A request for clemency to the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board also *******.

Glossip turned to the Supreme Court, which in May 2023 granted a stay of his ********** and, in January, agreed to take up his case. Justice Neil Gorsuch has recused himself, likely because of earlier proceedings when he was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

Drummond told the Supreme Court in a filing that the errors identified by the independent counsel are “serious instances of prosecutorial misconduct” that must be remedied.

The case has divided state attorneys general and local and federal prosecutors. In one

This is the hidden content, please
with the Supreme Court, attorneys general from seven states are calling for Glossip’s conviction to be upheld. They said the Oklahoma ********* Court of Appeals, the state’s court of last resort for ********* matters, based its ruling on state law and should be respected by the federal courts.

But the group of prosecutors is calling on the Supreme Court to grant Glossip relief, arguing that he is at “imminent risk” of being wrongfully *********.

“Prosecutions must be premised upon an honest and completely transparent record to protect societal confidence in the verdict and the ****** sentence,” they said in a

This is the hidden content, please
in support of Glossip.

Van Treese’s family, meanwhile, contests the notion that the prosecution concealed information from the defense. Instead, they said in a

This is the hidden content, please
that the prosecutor’s notes reflect Sneed recounting what the defense team was asking him.

His wife, son and sister suggested that there may be political motivations underlying Drummond’s “confession of error,” given that ****** penalty cases and high-profile prosecutions can stir up strong feelings.

“It would not be surprising to find that one politically elected official might view the facts of a case one way, while another might go in a different direction,” they said. “But if officials are free to simply confess ‘error’ because they disagree with a case’s outcome, trust in the ********* justice system becomes the casualty.”

A decision in the case is expected by the end of June 2025.



This is the hidden content, please

#Richard #Glossip #****** #row #inmate #whos #meals #returns #Supreme #Court #bid #trial

This is the hidden content, please

This is the hidden content, please

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Important Information

Privacy Notice: We utilize cookies to optimize your browsing experience and analyze website traffic. By consenting, you acknowledge and agree to our Cookie Policy, ensuring your privacy preferences are respected.