Historic Supreme Court Ruling Offers Hope: A Landmark Victory for Death Row Inmate

The Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that Richard Glossip, who was sentenced to death under questionable circumstances, will get a new trial. This decision came in the case of Glossip v. Oklahoma. Despite the court’s typical reluctance to help death row inmates, Glossip’s case stood out due to the compelling evidence questioning his conviction.

Oklahoma’s attorney general, usually responsible for defending such convictions, argued that Glossip’s original trial was fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional. Five justices supported the decision for a new trial, with only two dissenting. Notably, Justice Amy Coney Barrett acknowledged the violation of Glossip’s rights but suggested sending the case back to an Oklahoma appeals court.

Significant doubts about Glossip’s conviction emerged from two major investigations. One, conducted by the law firm Reed Smith for a group of lawmakers, highlighted numerous errors and police failures that jeopardized the fairness of Glossip’s trial. Another investigation by Attorney General Gentner Drummond underscored that Glossip did not receive a fair trial.

In 1997, maintenance worker Justin Sneed killed motel owner Barry Van Treese, for which Glossip was initially charged as an accessory. Over time, however, prosecutors claimed that Glossip had masterminded the murder. This theory is controversial, especially since evidence suggests that police pressured Sneed into implicating Glossip.

Sneed’s testimony against Glossip was central to the prosecution’s case, but this testimony was flawed. During the trial, Sneed falsely claimed he had never seen a psychiatrist. In reality, while in jail, he had been prescribed lithium for his bipolar disorder. This critical information only came to light recently, raising questions about the reliability of Sneed’s account.

Had Glossip’s defense team known about Sneed’s mental health history, they might have used it to dramatically alter the jury’s perception. For example, they could have argued that Sneed acted impulsively during a manic episode rather than as part of a planned murder.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor explained in the ruling that the Supreme Court’s previous decisions require a conviction based on false testimony to be overturned if it could have influenced the jury’s decision. Given the new evidence surrounding Sneed, there’s a reasonable belief that a jury might have reached a different verdict had they known the truth.

Glossip’s case will now be retried, offering a chance to reassess the evidence and the credibility of key testimony against him.

Check out this related article: Supreme Court Grants New Trial to Death Row Inmate Richard Glossip: What This Means for Justice