Supreme Court Gives Inmate Richard Glossip a New Trial

The Supreme Court has overturned Richard Glossip’s death sentence, granting him a new trial after 26 years on death row.

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 to overturn Glossip’s conviction and death sentence.
The decision was based on the prosecution’s failure to correct false testimony from a key witness.
Oklahoma’s Republican Attorney General supported Glossip’s bid for a new trial.
Glossip has maintained his innocence throughout his 26 years on death row.
The case highlights concerns about the death penalty and prosecutorial misconduct.

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction

In a significant ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has ordered a new trial for Richard Glossip, reversing the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision that had upheld his conviction and death sentence. The 5-3 decision, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivering the majority opinion, found that prosecutors violated Glossip’s constitutional right to due process by failing to correct false testimony from a key witness.

The majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the decision due to his prior involvement in the case during his tenure on a lower court.

The Supreme Court throws out Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip’s murder conviction because a key witness lied in court and prosecutors withheld information about him. https://t.co/8tmh8FtZH5

— NBC Bay Area (@nbcbayarea) February 25, 2025

Case Background and Concerns

Glossip was convicted for the 1997 murder of motel owner Barry Van Treese. The prosecution’s case heavily relied on testimony from Justin Sneed, who admitted to the murder but claimed Glossip had paid him to commit the crime. Sneed received a life sentence in exchange for his testimony against Glossip.

The court’s decision focused on the prosecution’s failure to disclose Sneed’s psychiatric treatment, which could have affected the jury’s perception of his credibility. This omission, coupled with other concerns such as destroyed evidence, led to the conclusion that Glossip’s right to a fair trial had been compromised.

Unusual Alliance and Dissenting Opinions

In a rare alignment, both Glossip’s lawyers and Oklahoma’s Republican Attorney General, Gentner Drummond, argued for overturning the conviction. Drummond cited new evidence suggesting an unfair trial, emphasizing the importance of justice over finality in death penalty cases.

However, the decision was not unanimous. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, dissented, arguing that the Supreme Court lacks the power to override state court decisions in this manner. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, while agreeing on jurisdiction, preferred further proceedings rather than immediately setting aside the conviction.

Implications and Future Proceedings

This ruling marks a significant turn in Glossip’s case, which has seen multiple execution dates and appeals over the past two decades. Glossip, who has maintained his innocence throughout his 26 years on death row, will now have the opportunity for a new trial.

The case highlights ongoing concerns about the death penalty system, including issues of prosecutorial misconduct and the reliability of witness testimony in capital cases. As Glossip’s case moves forward, it will likely continue to spark debate about the fairness and efficacy of capital punishment in the United States.