The Supreme Court has granted Richard Glossip, a death row inmate in Oklahoma, a new trial, following significant support for clemency from both sides of the political spectrum and celebrities like Kim Kardashian. Attorney General Gentner Drummond requested the retrial, highlighting due process violations due to false testimony by the state’s star witness, Justin Sneed. Sneed, who was convicted of killing Glossip’s employer, testified against him in exchange for a lighter sentence. Newly uncovered evidence suggested Sneed had withheld critical information regarding his mental health, contradicting his statements during the trial and leading to the court’s decision for a new trial.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court granted Richard Glossip, a death row inmate in Oklahoma, a new trial. His challenge to his conviction resulted in a remarkable concession from the state’s attorney general.
Both political parties in the state legislature and high-profile figures such as Kim Kardashian urged for either clemency or a new trial.
Importantly, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a Republican, petitioned the justices to vacate Mr. Glossip’s 2004 conviction and mandate a retrial.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a majority opinion, stated that prosecutors failed to address false testimony from their key witness, thus infringing on Mr. Glossip’s due process rights. “Glossip is entitled to a new trial,” she asserted.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., and Amy Coney Barrett dissented in whole or in part. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, having previously adjudicated a related aspect of the case as an appeals court judge, recused himself.
Mr. Glossip was found guilty of orchestrating the murder of Barry Van Treese, his employer and the owner of a motel in Oklahoma City. Two independent investigations have raised significant doubts about his guilt, noting that crucial evidence was withheld and key testimonies were flawed.
The conviction relied heavily on the account of the state’s primary witness, Justin Sneed, a handyman who pled guilty to killing Van Treese by beating him to death with a baseball bat in 1997.
In exchange for a life sentence, Sneed agreed to testify against Glossip, claiming that Glossip directed him to kill Van Treese.
Recently released notes appear to challenge Sneed’s testimony regarding his treatment by a psychiatrist, suggesting he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder.
“When I was arrested,” Sneed testified, “I asked for some Sudafed because I had a cold, but shortly after that they somehow gave me lithium for some reason.”
“I don’t know why,” he continued. “I never saw a psychiatrist or anything.”
The prosecutor, Connie Smothermon, highlighted that testimony. “So you don’t know why they gave you that?” she queried. Sneed replied no.
Attorneys for Glossip and the state argued that Sneed had provided false testimony regarding his lithium prescription and that Smothermon failed to correct him.
They referenced newly revealed notes from Smothermon that featured two disputed phrases, one asking, “On Lithium?” and another, “Dr. Trumpet?” The second query seemingly referred to Dr. Lawrence Trombka, the sole psychiatrist at the jail where Sneed was incarcerated after the murder.
This, they contended, breached essential standards set by two Supreme Court rulings: Brady v. Maryland, which mandates the disclosure of potentially exonerating evidence, and Napue v. Illinois, which bars presenting known false testimony.
Justice Sotomayor cited the latter precedent, stating, “We conclude that the prosecution’s failure to correct Sneed’s trial testimony violated the due process clause.”