Supreme Court Grants Rare Victory to Death Row Inmate Richard Glossip

In a surprising decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Richard Glossip, a man sentenced to death under questionable circumstances, must receive a new trial. The case, Glossip v. Oklahoma, has drawn national attention due to serious doubts about the fairness of Glossip’s conviction. The 6-3 conservative-majority Court is typically unsympathetic to death row appeals, but Glossip’s case was so flawed that even Oklahoma’s Republican Attorney General sided with him, arguing that his trial violated the Constitution.

Key Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s Ruling

• Five justices—Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—voted in favor of a new trial.

• Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed that Glossip’s rights were violated but suggested the case should have been sent to Oklahoma’s appeals court instead.

• Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, while Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself.

What Went Wrong in Glossip’s Case?

Glossip was convicted in connection with the 1997 murder of motel owner Barry Van Treese, who was killed by Justin Sneed, a maintenance worker. The only direct evidence linking Glossip to the crime was Sneed’s testimony, which came under heavy scrutiny for its inconsistencies and possible coercion by police.

Two separate investigations—one by the law firm Reed Smith and another by Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond—found numerous errors in Glossip’s trial, including:

• Destroyed evidence and police misconduct.

• Failure to disclose that Sneed had a history of mental illness and was prescribed lithium for bipolar disorder—a crucial detail hidden from the jury.

• False testimony by Sneed, which prosecutors failed to correct, violating Supreme Court precedent (Napue v. Illinois, 1959).

Why This Decision Matters

Under Supreme Court precedent, convictions based on false testimony must be overturned if there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury’s verdict could have been different. Given that Sneed was the only direct witness against Glossip, the Court found that his false statements may have affected the trial’s outcome—warranting a new trial.This decision marks a rare win for a death row inmate, though it does not guarantee Glossip’s exoneration. Instead, it gives him another chance to prove his innocence in a fair trial.

See more in: https://www.vox.com/scotus/401204/supreme-court-richard-glossip-oklahoma-death-penalty