A law enforcement officer walks outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. on Oct. 9, 2024. The court Wednesday heard arguments in a case over an Oklahoma death row inmate who is seeking a retrial, with the backing of the Oklahoma attorney general. (Jane Norman/States Newsroom)
This story originally appeared on Oklahoma Voice.
OKLAHOMA CITY — An appeal from Oklahoma death-row inmate Richard Glossip came before the nation’s highest court on Wednesday, as he and Attorney General Gentner Drummond formed an unusual union arguing for his murder conviction to be vacated.
Attorneys representing Glossip and Drummond both asked the U.S. Supreme Court to return the case to district court for a retrial. They contend prosecutorial misconduct marred Glossip’s previous conviction and prevented him from receiving a fair trial.
The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices heavily questioned the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ reasoning when it upheld Glossip’s conviction and death sentence, despite the attorney general reporting prosecutorial errors. Responses appeared to be mixed from the Court’s conservative justices, with some appearing to side with the Oklahoma appeals court and another saying it was “unusual” the way Drummond’s complaints were dismissed.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case by June.
Richard Glossip, pictured in 2021, was convicted and sentenced to death for a murder-for-hire plot that resulted in the 1997 death of Barry Van Treese. (Oklahoma Department of Corrections)
Glossip, 61, was found guilty of plotting the 1997 murder of his boss, Oklahoma City motel owner Barry Van Treese, and was sentenced to death. Another employee at the motel, Justin Sneed, testified that Glossip paid him to carry out the killing.
However, Glossip and Drummond both contend the prosecution allowed Sneed to lie on the stand about his psychiatric condition and failed to turn over evidence to the defense that would have revealed the star witness was being treated for a mental illness.
When Sneed lied that he didn’t know why he was given lithium, prosecutors made no attempt to correct the record and withheld information from the defense that would have shown the witness was untruthful, legal counsel for Glossip and Drummond said.
They contended Glossip’s trial might have had a different result had the defense and the jury been aware of this information. The prosecutors’ case hinged on Sneed’s testimony.
The state Court of Criminal Appeals, though, said Glossip’s attorneys during the trial either knew or should have known about Sneed’s mental illness and chose not to question him about it. The Oklahoma appeals court also doubted that a correction of Sneed’s testimony mid-trial would have changed the outcome.
Justice Elena Kagan disagreed. Kagan, nominated to the Supreme Court in 2010 by President Barack Obama, said the jury might have found Sneed’s lie discrediting.
“The critical question that a jury is asking is, ‘Do I believe this guy in everything he says, and particularly, do I believe him when he points the finger at the accused?’” she said during oral arguments. “If he’s lying, if he’s trying to cover up something about his own behavior, I’m going to take that into account in deciding whether, when he accuses the defendant, he’s telling the truth.”
The more important issue, according to the Court of Criminal Appeals, is that these issues were not raised in earlier appeals. Even with the attorney general on his side, Glossip’s latest appeal falls short of procedural requirements to be seriously considered, the Oklahoma court decided.
Kagan and the Court’s other two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, appeared to reject the Oklahoma court’s procedural gripes when it denied Drummond’s request for a new trial.
An attorney representing Drummond in the oral arguments, Paul Clement, said years of common practice and precedent in Oklahoma allow the state to set aside procedural hurdles when alleged due process violations have been discovered.
Even a member of the Court’s conservative majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, acknowledged that it was “unusual” for the appeals court not to grant Drummond’s request to waive the procedural matters.
But, conservative Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that even with the other issues set aside, the appeals court said it still didn’t see enough reason to vacate Glossip’s conviction.
“I don’t see what’s unclear or even ambiguous about that,” Alito said.
Justice Clarence Thomas, nominated in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush, repeatedly asked why the original prosecutors weren’t interviewed at length.
“These two prosecutors, it seems as though their reputations are being impugned, and according to them, they did not receive an opportunity to explain in depth,” Thomas said.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, center, has sought a retrial of death-row inmate Richard Glossip because of alleged prosecutorial errors marring a previous conviction. (Kyle Phillips for Oklahoma Voice)
Drummond shortly after taking office last year initiated an independent investigation of the Glossip case. The investigator found “multiple instances of error that cast doubt on the conviction,” according to the Attorney General’s Office.
That prompted Drummond to ask the state Court of Criminal Appeals in April 2023 to remand Glossip back to district court for another trial.
The appeals court ruling put Glossip back on track toward execution until the U.S. Supreme Court intervened days before his scheduled death in May 2023. The Court then agreed in January to review his case.
So far, Glossip has been scheduled for execution nine times and eaten three “last meals.” He is imprisoned in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester.
Drummond has not said he believes Glossip is innocent but rather argued that the defendant cannot be convicted and executed without receiving due process.
“Oklahomans deserve to have absolute faith that the death penalty is administered fairly and with certainty,” Drummond said in a statement after the Supreme Court hearing. “Considering everything we know about this case, justice is not served by executing a man based on the testimony of a compromised witness.”
Family members of the murder victim, Van Treese, urged the Supreme Court to reject Glossip’s appeal and called for the execution to move forward. They and the Oklahoma District Attorneys Association filed a joint friend-of-the-court brief, which Alito said provided a “pretty compelling counter reading” on some of Glossip’s arguments.
The brief included remarks the victim’s son, Derek Van Treese, gave to the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board, which voted 2-2 against clemency for Glossip.
Derek Van Treese said multiple juries and courts have come to the same conclusion of Glossip’s guilt.
“The time is now, I urge you, I beg you to allow justice to finally be served through the word of law and the will of the people. Enough is enough,” Derek Van Treese said, according to his family’s brief.
Oklahoma Voice is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oklahoma Voice maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janelle Stecklein for questions: info@oklahomavoice.com. Follow Oklahoma Voice on Facebook and X.