In a dramatic turn of events, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted a stay of execution for Richard Glossip, an inmate on death row in Oklahoma. The decision came after Oklahoma’s Attorney General, Gentner F. Drummond, expressed his support for vacating Glossip’s conviction. The Supreme Court’s order, issued on May 5, suspends Glossip’s execution until his petition for certiorari is resolved.
The case has garnered significant attention, with major news outlets like The New York Times, CNN, and The Washington Post providing extensive coverage. Attorney General Drummond filed a response with the Supreme Court, emphasizing the importance of their intervention. He stated, “Absent this court’s intervention, an execution will move forward under circumstances where the attorney general has already confessed error—a result that would be unthinkable.”
Richard Glossip was convicted in 1997 for the murder of Barry Van Treese, the owner of an Oklahoma City motel where Glossip worked. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimony of Justin Sneed, a motel handyman, who claimed that Glossip had offered him $10,000 to carry out the killing. With a history of violence and a criminal record, Sneed pleaded guilty to beating Van Treese to death with a baseball bat.
However, subsequent independent investigations conducted on behalf of lawmakers and the state attorney general raised concerns about the prosecution’s case. The first investigation, conducted pro bono by Reed Smith lawyers, revealed that Sneed had implicated Glossip after the detectives’ repeated mentions of Glossip’s name. Sneed, who had agreed to implicate Glossip, received a life sentence. Later, he expressed his intention to recant his testimony.
Let us help you advance your legal career – submit your resume to BCG Attorney Search now.
During Sneed’s trial, he testified that he was administered lithium when he requested cold medicine, despite never having seen a psychiatrist. In reality, Sneed had been treated for bipolar affective disorder in 1997, and the lithium was prescribed for his mental illness. Prosecutors failed to correct this misleading testimony.
The Reed Smith report also highlighted the destruction of crucial physical evidence and potentially exculpatory financial documents before Glossip’s retrial. Additionally, vital evidence appeared lost, such as video footage from a nearby Sinclair Gas Station. These findings raised serious doubts about the integrity of the case against Glossip.
Despite the Attorney General’s admission of error, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals denied Glossip a new trial. The state parole board also failed to reach a consensus on clemency, preventing the Oklahoma governor from commuting Glossip’s sentence to life without parole.
Attorney General Drummond informed the parole board that he does not believe the evidence establishes Glossip’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, he suggested that Glossip may be guilty of being an accessory to murder after the fact and likely guilty of murder, according to CNN.
Richard Glossip has garnered significant support from various quarters, including celebrity advocate Kim Kardashian and a bipartisan group of 62 Oklahoma lawmakers. Their involvement has drawn attention to the flaws and potential injustices in Glossip’s case.
With the Supreme Court’s stay of execution, Richard Glossip’s fate remains uncertain. The decision offers hope for further examination of the evidence and a fair assessment of his conviction. As this high-profile case continues to unfold, it raises important questions about the criminal justice system and the potential risks of wrongful convictions.