Regardless of a long time of failed dying row appeals, Oklahoma inmate Richard Glossip could get one other shot in court docket at overturning his conviction after a majority of U.S. Supreme Court docket justices indicated Wednesday that he may not have gotten a good trial.
Whereas the court docket’s conservative majority hardly ever agrees to listen to capital instances, a lot much less grant aid, Glossip’s plea has drawn distinctive consideration from the justices as a result of the state’s Republican Legal professional Basic agrees that the trial was “deeply flawed.”
The state’s highest court docket, in contrast, has dominated that each one of Glossip’s appeals have been exhausted and that claims of prosecutorial misconduct wouldn’t have modified the end result.
This picture supplied by the Oklahoma Division of Corrections reveals dying row inmate Richard Glossip on Feb. 19, 2021.
Oklahoma Division of Corrections by way of AP, FILE
Throughout oral arguments, the justices wrestled first with whether or not the court docket even had jurisdiction to intervene within the state case. In addition they grappled with whether or not suppression of proof and the permitting of a key witness to lie on the stand violated Glossip’s civil rights.
Glossip, 61, was convicted in 1998 for ordering the killing of his then-boss Barry Van Treese. The precise killer, Justin Sneed, testified in change for a life sentence that Glossip had paid him $10,000 to do it. Glossip has maintained his innocence, however no court docket has granted his enchantment.
It was found after trial that Sneed had been taking lithium to deal with bipolar dysfunction, although on the stand he denied psychological sickness. A number of impartial opinions recommend the prosecutor could have identified Sneed was mendacity however didn’t right the testimony.
A number of justices recommended they have been uncomfortable with backing an execution beneath the circumstances.
“The entire case relied on [Sneed’s] credibility,” famous Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who stated he was “having some hassle” with the concept the psychological sickness revelations would not have affected the jury.
The US Supreme Court docket is seen on the primary day of a brand new time period in Washington, Oct. 7, 2024.
Saul Loeb/AFP by way of Getty Photographs
Justice Sonia Sotomayor recommended that acknowledgment of a bipolar situation might have raised the likelihood “that [Sneed’s] use of medication would have led to impulsive and violent habits.”
“Should you can present that he lied on the stand when he stated ‘I by no means noticed a psychiatrist and I did not get a prescription from the psychiatrist,'” stated Justice Elena Kagan, “that appears fairly materials to me. I imply, it is simply your one witness has been uncovered as a liar.”
On the similar time, a number of of the court docket’s conservatives — most notably Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – sharply disagreed.
“Do you actually suppose it might make that a lot of a distinction to the jury?” requested Chief Justice John Roberts about particulars of Sneed’s psychiatric situation.
“It very nicely might have made a major distinction within the consequence of the case,” replied Glossip legal professional and former U.S. Solicitor Basic Seth Waxman.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court docket’s junior justice and a member of the liberal wing, hinted at a center floor method: ordering an Oklahoma court docket to extra carefully study proof of alleged prosecutorial misconduct earlier than ruling on a brand new trial.
“It is my understanding that there is by no means been a court docket dedication of any of those info,” Jackson stated. “Why we would not, on the minimal, have some type of requirement {that a} court docket make a discovering about this stuff?”
Solely eight justices heard arguments on Wednesday after Justice Neil Gorsuch — a former appeals court docket choose who had connection to the case — recused himself. They will vote to overturn Glossip’s conviction, uphold it, or return the case to a state court docket for additional proceedings. A 4-4 tie would let the Oklahoma resolution stand and clear the best way for an execution.
Oklahoma Legal professional Basic Gentner Drummond testifies throughout a Home Homeland Safety Committee listening to on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 10, 2024.
Nathan Howard/Reuters, FILE
Oklahoma Legal professional Basic Gentner Drummond has stated he doesn’t imagine Glossip is harmless however {that a} new trial is crucial to upholding the credibility of the judicial system.
“The dying penalty would not activate, you understand, ideology or politics. It ought to activate the rule of legislation,” he instructed ABC Information in an interview. “This has been a wildly unpopular place for me to take, however it’s the precise factor to do.”
Glossip was first convicted in 1998 and once more in 2004 after a state appeals court docket ordered a brand new trial. He has misplaced appeals on the state clemency board and likewise had clemency denied by the governor.
In a separate Supreme Court docket case in 2015, Glossip unsuccessfully challenged Oklahoma’s deadly injection drug protocol. He has been scheduled for execution 9 instances and served his “final meal” 3 times.
The Van Treese household instructed the excessive court docket in a friend-of-the-court submitting that it desires Glossip’s conviction and sentence upheld.
A call within the case is anticipated by early 2025.
