In Amicus Briefs, Conservative Officials, Oklahoma Lawmakers, and Civil Rights Groups are United in Urging the U.S. Supreme Court to Vacate Richard Glossip’s Conviction

On April 30, 2024, a week after the par­ties in Glossip v. Oklahoma filed mer­its briefs at the United States Supreme Court, sev­er­al ami­ci filed briefs in sup­port of the par­ties’ joint posi­tion, ask­ing the Court to grant Richard Glossip (pic­tured) a new tri­al. Ken Cuccinelli, the for­mer Virginia Attorney General and Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security under President Donald Trump, said in his brief that the con­se­quences of fail­ing to over­turn Mr. Glossip’s con­vic­tion are ​“most dire.” During his tenure as Virginia’s Attorney General, Mr. Cuccinelli’s office ​“rou­tine­ly reviewed con­vic­tions to ensure that defen­dants were not wrong­ful­ly con­vict­ed — with a spe­cial empha­sis on cap­i­tal con­vic­tions.” When these inves­ti­ga­tions proved that pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al mis­con­duct had a role in secur­ing a con­vic­tion, Mr. Cuccinelli ​“ful­filled his office’s duty to pur­sue jus­tice by con­fess­ing error…” Mr. Cuccinelli says that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ ​“facile dis­missal of [AG Drummond’s] con­fes­sion could force the State to exe­cute Petitioner Richard Glossip notwith­stand­ing the State’s admis­sion that his con­sti­tu­tion­al rights were vio­lat­ed. The injus­tice of such a result is impos­si­ble to overstate.”

Mr. Glossip has spent more than two decades on Oklahoma’s death row for the 1997 mur­der-for-hire of Barry Van Treese. In 2022, the state acknowl­edged that his con­vic­tion was secured by elic­it­ing false tes­ti­mo­ny and sup­press­ing evi­dence, but the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has refused to grant Mr. Glossip relief. In his brief to the Supreme Court, AG Drummond stat­ed that while he firm­ly believes that Mr. Glossip’s rights were vio­lat­ed and that the OCCA’s rul­ing was a ​“flawed white­wash­ing of fed­er­al con­sti­tu­tion­al vio­la­tions”, he still believes that Mr. Glossip is guilty. In the brief filed by Mr. Glossip’s attor­neys, they allege that the OCCA erred in reject­ing the con­fes­sion of error from AG Drummond’s office and when it held that the pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al mis­con­duct was imma­te­r­i­al to the case outcome.

Additional ami­ci argu­ing in sup­port of a new tri­al include Oklahoma Republican state rep­re­sen­ta­tives Kevin McDugle and Justin ​“JJ” Humphrey, state sen­a­tors David Bullard and Blake Stephens, and for­mer sen­a­tor Gary Mize, all of whom were mem­bers of the leg­isla­tive com­mit­tee formed to inves­ti­gate Mr. Glossip’s case. Although these men indi­cat­ed their strong belief in the use of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, they argued that they ​“also believe that a death sen­tence should be car­ried out only sub­ject to the strict con­sti­tu­tion­al and oth­er legal pro­tec­tions that apply to all crim­i­nal defen­dants, espe­cial­ly those against whom the State seeks to impose the most severe and final pun­ish­ment – death.” The leg­is­la­tors describe the ​“appalling mis­con­duct” that was uncov­ered more than two decades after Mr. Glossip’s con­vic­tion. ​“The grave doubts that plague Richard Glossip’s con­vic­tion and death sen­tence requires this Court’s inter­ven­tion and a new tri­al. A con­trary result would erode the public’s con­fi­dence in the jus­tice sys­tem and cast doubt on the death penal­ty more gen­er­al­ly,” the brief stated.

Another ami­cus brief was filed by for­mer mem­bers of the bipar­ti­san Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission, chaired by for­mer Governor Brad Henry and for­mer U.S. Magistrate Judge Andy Lester. The Commission was cre­at­ed in 2016 to review the state’s cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment sys­tem and in 2017 released a report on their find­ings, out­lin­ing 45 rec­om­men­da­tions for reform. In their ami­cus brief, the com­mis­sion­ers dis­cuss the ​“myr­i­ad prob­lems” in Oklahoma’s death penal­ty sys­tem, many of which ​“under­mine the integri­ty of [Mr. Glossip’s] con­vic­tion.” Among these rec­om­men­da­tions, the com­mis­sion­ers iden­ti­fied ​“top­ics includ­ing foren­sics, inno­cence pro­tec­tion, the role of pros­e­cu­tors and defense coun­sel, the judi­cial process, death eli­gi­bil­i­ty, and the exe­cu­tion process.” Mr. Glossip’s case ​“pow­er­ful­ly exem­pli­fies the con­cerns the Commission iden­ti­fied with admin­is­tra­tion of the death penal­ty in Oklahoma.

The ACLU, ACLU of Oklahoma, and the Howard University School of Law’s Civil Right Clinic also filed an ami­cus brief sup­port­ing a new tri­al for Mr. Glossip. The groups argue that the US Supreme Court must reverse the OCCA’s rul­ing and cor­rect ​“endem­ic” legal mis­con­duct by Oklahoma pros­e­cu­tors. ​“Mr. Glossip’s case cries out for Brady and Napue relief and a clear mes­sage from the Court that vio­la­tions of their core prin­ci­ples will not be tol­er­at­ed,” they wrote.