Supreme Court Grants New Trial To Death Row Inmate Richard Glossip

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

Quick Takes

The Supreme Court has ordered a new trial for Richard Glossip, who was previously convicted and sentenced to death, in a 5-3 decision.
The prosecution was found to have violated Glossip’s due process rights by failing to correct false testimony.
Oklahoma’s Republican Attorney General supported Glossip’s bid for a new trial.
The case highlights concerns about fairness in capital punishment proceedings.

Supreme Court Overturns Glossip’s Conviction

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has ordered a new trial for Richard Glossip, overturning his conviction and death sentence. The decision comes after Glossip spent over two decades on death row for the 1997 murder of motel owner Barry Van Treese. The court’s 5-3 ruling, 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 case has drawn attention to the complexities and potential flaws in capital punishment proceedings. Glossip’s conviction relied heavily on testimony from Justin Sneed, who admitted to the murder but claimed Glossip paid him to commit the crime. The Supreme 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.

He's had three 'last meals' on Oklahoma's death row. The Supreme Court has now tossed his conviction https://t.co/0yjpgOypqb

— The Independent (@Independent) February 25, 2025

Unusual Alliance in Seeking Justice

In an uncommon turn of events, 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, including concerns about Sneed’s false testimony and destroyed evidence. This rare alignment between the defense and the state’s top prosecutor underscores the gravity of the issues surrounding Glossip’s case.

Glossip’s case, which has seen multiple execution dates and even “last meals,” highlights the high stakes involved in capital cases and the potential for errors that can have irreversible consequences.

Dissenting Opinions and Constitutional Concerns

The Supreme Court’s decision was not unanimous. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, dissented, arguing that the court lacks the power to override state court decisions. Thomas criticized the majority for allegedly bending the law to favor Glossip and contended that Sneed’s medical condition was immaterial to the trial’s outcome.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett took a middle ground, agreeing on jurisdiction but preferring further proceedings rather than immediately setting aside the conviction. These differing opinions reflect the complex legal and ethical considerations surrounding death penalty cases and the court’s role in reviewing state decisions.

Implications for Future Capital Cases

The Glossip case serves as a stark reminder of the critical importance of prosecutorial integrity and the disclosure of all relevant evidence in capital trials. It underscores the need for rigorous scrutiny of witness testimony, especially when life and death hang in the balance.