The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case that pits Oklahoma's attorney general against the state’s highest court for criminal appeals. At issue is whether the state court wrongly refused to accept the attorney general's findings that Richard Glossip, a death row inmate, is entitled to a new trial, NPR reports. Glossip has been on death row for more than 25 years. In that time, he has been tried and convicted twice and has lost multiple appeals, including one at the Supreme Court. The only witness to directly tie Glossip to the murder of motel owner Barry Van Treese was Justin Sneed, a handyman at the motel where Glossip was the manager. Sneed confessed to murdering Van Treese and, in exchange for testifying against Glossip, got life in prison instead of the death penalty. Prosecutors never claimed Glossip had actually participated in the murder itself. They said he had organized it to either avoid being fired, or in a different theory of the crime at the second trial, to steal money from Van Treese.
But after several investigations, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a Republican and death penalty supporter, then took a rare step and asked the state Court of Criminal Appeals to order a new trial because he said that Glossip had been convicted with evidence tainted by prosecutorial misconduct. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, however, refused Drummond’s request for a new trial, and the attorney general appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the appeals court ruling should be reversed. At arguments on Wednesday, it was not clear whether there were five justices who would vote for a new trial. Glossip’s chance to avoid execution is likely in the hands of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, or Justice Amy Coney Barrett, or both. The court’s liberals, however, were openly appalled. Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that the prosecutors knew their star witness had lied, and did nothing to correct the lie, as required by multiple Supreme Court rulings. Justice Elena Kagan was even more blunt. "In a case where the entire case rested on the testimony of one person… your one witness has just been exposed as a liar," she said pointedly. Those lies are particularly important, she said, because "the critical question the jury is asking is 'Do I believe this guy and do I believe him when he's pointed the finger at the accused.'"
Comments