United States Supreme Court Will Consider Significance of Prosecutor’s Confession of Error in Glossip v. Oklahoma

On October 9, 2024, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Glossip v. Oklahoma, when the Court will consider multiple questions related to Richard Glossip’s conviction and death sentence. This is Mr. Glossip’s second trip to the Supreme Court; the first occurred in 2015 in connection with his method of execution challenge. Mr. Glossip has always maintained his innocence of the 1997 “murder for hire” crime that sent him to death row. In the intervening years, he has endured nine execution dates and eaten three “last meals.”  The Supreme Court stayed his most recent execution date, set for May 18, 2023.  He is the only prisoner who received a stay of execution from the Court in between October 2022 and October 2023. 

The questions before the Court include whether the prosecution’s decision to suppress material information about their star witness—who actually committed the murder—and permit him to falsely testify in exchange for a plea deal violated due process. Oklahoma’s Attorney General Gentner Drummond has already answered this question in the affirmative, confessing constitutional error and supporting a new trial for Mr. Glossip. He is supporting Mr. Glossip’s petition for relief at the Supreme Court, which will consider whether “due process of law requires reversal…where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the State no longer seeks to defend it.” The petition seeks a reversal of the decision by the Oklahoma’s court of criminal appeals, which denied Mr. Glossip the relief he and AG Drummond sought.  The Supreme Court also instructed the parties to address a jurisdictional question regarding the Supreme Court’s ability to consider the case at all.

The case is notable in several respects: first, there is the unprecedented support of Attorney General Drummond, siding with a death-sentenced prisoner against the courts in his own state.  Second, there is support for Mr. Glossip from unusual individuals, including a group of Oklahoma legislators who support the death penalty, and former Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, who oversaw five executions while in office. Three former United States Solicitor Generals are also involved in this case, representing Mr. Glossip, AG Drummond, and the group of Oklahoma legislators. And finally, there is the underlying importance of Mr. Glossip’s innocence. His is another recent high-profile case of innocence, along with Marcellus Williams, who was executed on September 24th, and Robert Roberson, who has an October 17^th execution date.  

In support of Mr. Glossip, AG Drummond told the Court that “ensuring that justice is done in this case requires a retrial.” AG Drummond added that the “injustice of allowing a capital sentence to be carried out where the conviction was occasioned by the government’s own admitted failings would be nigh unfathomable.” 

Background: In March 2023, AG Drummond and attorneys for Mr. Glossip filed a Joint Motion for a Stay of Execution, asking the OCCA to delay Mr. Glossip’s May 2023 execution date to August 2023. A week after the joint motion was filed, AG Drummond formally conceded error in Mr. Glossip’s case. He asked the OCCA to vacate Mr. Glossip’s conviction because of “material misstatements” made by Justin Sneed, the prosecution’s star witness, and a report by an independent counsel documenting errors that cast doubt on the validity of Mr. Glossip’s conviction and death sentence. On April 20, 2023, the OCCA denied these requests. 

Less than a week after the OCCA denied their requests, attorneys for Mr. Glossip filed a motion for a stay of execution with the U.S. Supreme Court, and days later, AG Drummond filed a Response, noting that he did not oppose the stay of execution. In the Response, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement argues that “absent this Court’s intervention, an execution will move forward under circumstances where the Attorney General has already confessed error—a result that would be unthinkable. In those unprecedented circumstances, this Court should grant the application for a stay of execution.” 

On May 4, 2023, Mr. Glossip’s attorneys filed a petition asserting that his capital conviction should be overturned due to significant errors. They argued that the conviction is so flawed that even the State has refused to defend it, requiring a reversal to uphold due process of law. The petition argued that the state suppressed knowledge that Mr. Sneed was under the care of a psychiatrist and failed to correct his false testimony, due process violations under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois, which require the prosecution overturn evidence favorable to the defense and to correct knowingly false statements from their own witnesses. On May 5, 2023, the U.S. Court granted a stay of execution for Mr. Glossip.

An independent investigation carried out by the law firm Reed Smith previously found that Mr. Sneed, the state’s key witness, discussed recanting his testimony over the course of a decade, both before and after Mr. Glossip’s second trial. A handwritten note from Mr. Sneed to his attorneys, states, “Do I have the choice of recanting at any time during my life?” Another handwritten note indicates that Mr. Sneed thought his testimony was “a mistake.” These notes were never shared with Mr. Glossip’s defense team. The investigation also documented conversations with Mr. Sneed and Reed Smith lawyers in which he agreed that he talked with his mother and daughter about recanting his testimony, something he previously denied.

For more information on Mr. Glossip’s case history, see the interactive timeline below.