The state’s Republican attorney general agrees that Richard Glossip’s conviction should be thrown out based on problematic testimony at trial.
The U.S. Supreme Court is currently examining whether to overturn the conviction of Richard Glossip, a death row inmate in Oklahoma, whose case is based largely on testimony from a key witness who has been exposed as dishonest. During oral arguments, Justice Elena Kagan remarked that the state’s most significant witness, Justin Sneed, had been “exposed as a liar.”
Glossip, convicted for orchestrating the 1997 murder of his boss, Barry Van Treese, was sentenced to death based primarily on Sneed’s testimony. Sneed, who pleaded guilty to the murder and avoided the death penalty, claimed that Glossip had hired him to kill Van Treese. However, new revelations suggest that Sneed’s testimony was false, and Oklahoma prosecutors failed to disclose important information that could have undermined his credibility.
The case has drawn attention not only because of the serious nature of the charges but also due to the unusual stance taken by Oklahoma’s Republican Attorney General, Gentner Drummond, who has supported Glossip’s claim for a new trial. This marks a rare instance where a state’s attorney general agrees with a death row inmate’s appeal.
The Supreme Court’s consideration comes after new evidence surfaced, casting doubt on the fairness of Glossip’s trial. Although Drummond has stopped short of declaring Glossip innocent, he agrees that the conviction should be revisited due to the significant flaws in the case, particularly regarding the mishandling of evidence and the perjury by the key witness.
As the case moves forward, it is unclear whether the Supreme Court will throw out the conviction entirely or order a new hearing. A ruling in favor of Glossip would be a major development in death penalty jurisprudence, especially given the high court’s conservative leanings. However, even if the court rules in Glossip’s favor, it might not result in his immediate release but rather a review of his case based on the newly disclosed information.
This case could potentially set a significant precedent for how the Supreme Court handles situations where key evidence is withheld or when witnesses are proven to be unreliable, raising questions about the fairness of the justice system in capital punishment cases.
