Former U.S. Attorneys, Prominent Business Leaders, Write Op-Eds in Support of Richard Glossip

Former fed­er­al Oklahoma pros­e­cu­tors Patrick Ryan and Daniel Webber co-authored an edi­to­r­i­al in The Oklahoman on May 17, 2023 express­ing seri­ous con­cerns about Richard Glossip’s con­vic­tion and death sen­tence. The writ­ers not­ed that a prosecutor’s duty ​“is not to win a case, but to ensure jus­tice is done,” and con­clud­ed that ​“the state did not fol­low these fun­da­men­tal prin­ci­ples in obtain­ing Richard Glossip’s 1998 and 2004 con­vic­tions and death sen­tences.” The for­mer pros­e­cu­tors col­lec­tive­ly served Oklahoma between 1995 – 2001, and Mr. Ryan pros­e­cut­ed and sought the death penal­ty for Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols after the Oklahoma City bomb­ing. Reflecting on their expe­ri­ence with cap­i­tal pros­e­cu­tions, the authors empha­sized that ​“the only way to tru­ly serve the vic­tims and peo­ple of Oklahoma was to run a clean and hon­or­able process. To do any­thing less would be a dis­ser­vice to the entire com­mu­ni­ty.” Regarding Attorney General Gentner’s extra­or­di­nary request to vacate Mr. Glossip’s con­vic­tion, they wrote that AG Drummond ​“has done the only just and hon­or­able thing here. In our opin­ion, it is con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly required. All pros­e­cu­tors, as min­is­ters of jus­tice, should stand behind him.”

Sir Richard Branson also penned an op-ed in The Oklahoman on May 18, crit­i­ciz­ing the state not just for the way it has han­dled Mr. Glossip’s case, but also its exe­cu­tion pro­to­col more broad­ly. After two botched exe­cu­tions in 2015, Oklahoma formed an inde­pen­dent com­mis­sion to review its exe­cu­tion pro­to­cols, which sug­gest­ed the state pause exe­cu­tions until it imple­ment­ed 46 rec­om­men­da­tions to “[pre­vent] wrong­ful cap­i­tal con­vic­tions and death sen­tences and [reduce] arbi­trari­ness” in the death penal­ty sys­tem. Very few of the rec­om­men­da­tions were implemented. 

Sir Branson’s op-ed dis­cussed the pos­si­ble reper­cus­sions involv­ing busi­ness inter­ests in Oklahoma. ​“The cur­rent sit­u­a­tion rais­es mate­r­i­al ques­tions for all those depen­dent on the rule of law and a jus­tice sys­tem that is fair. Business is no excep­tion. To oper­ate suc­cess­ful­ly, we need func­tion­ing and impar­tial insti­tu­tions, com­mit­ted to fair­ness, trans­paren­cy, account­abil­i­ty and jus­tice. When insti­tu­tions fail to func­tion in the way they should, espe­cial­ly when it comes to an irre­versible pun­ish­ment like the death penal­ty, we are left to won­der, ​‘What else could pos­si­bly go wrong?’” He fur­ther argued that “[the] con­tin­ued spot­light on the death penal­ty and its flawed prac­tice casts a dark shad­ow on the state’s com­mit­ment to good gov­er­nance and high stan­dards of legal prac­tice. It’s a fear shared by many. Earlier this year, a bipar­ti­san group of Oklahoma law­mak­ers called for a mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions. Faith groups across the state and the nation are express­ing grow­ing con­cerns. Last October, the ambas­sadors of 27 EU coun­tries, rep­re­sent­ing a key mar­ket for Oklahoma’s econ­o­my, signed a let­ter call­ing on the gov­er­nor to halt exe­cu­tions indef­i­nite­ly. And now, the attempt to exe­cute a man who the state admits did not receive a fair tri­al might be the breaking point.”

Mr. Glossip’s most recent exe­cu­tion date, May 18, was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court as it con­sid­ers his peti­tions for cer­tio­rari, which are based on the evi­dence that the pros­e­cu­tion alleged­ly sup­pressed dur­ing his pri­or tri­als, and raise claims that the state vio­lat­ed his right to due process.