Supreme Court to decide if Oklahoma must execute Richard Glossip

Twice up to now decade the Supreme Court docket has blocked Oklahoma from executing Richard Glossip. Now the state has joined Glossip to argue that newly uncovered proof exhibits prosecutors violated his rights at trial. However even with the Oklahoma’s uncommon confession of error, each the state’s highest courtroom for legal instances and the state’s pardon and parole board turned down Glossip’s pleas for reduction. On Oct. 9, two former U.S. solicitors normal – Seth Waxman, representing Glossip, and Paul Clement, representing Oklahoma’s lawyer normal – will seem earlier than the justices, looking for to steer them to put aside Glossip’s conviction and loss of life sentence and order a brand new trial.

Oklahoma Lawyer Normal Gentner Drummond instructed the courtroom that the state is just not on the lookout for an exoneration “by fiat (or in any respect)” however that “justice wouldn’t be served by shifting ahead with a capital sentence that the State can now not defend.”

In 1997, Barry Van Treese was bludgeoned to loss of life with a baseball bat within the room he was staying in at his Oklahoma Metropolis motel, the place Glossip labored as a supervisor. One other certainly one of Van Treese’s staff, Justin Sneed, confessed to killing him whereas on meth. He’s serving a life sentence. Glossip has maintained he had no half within the homicide and is harmless over the many years he has been on loss of life row.

The one proof implicating Glossip in Van Treese’s loss of life was testimony from Sneed, who labored as a handyman on the lodge. Sneed instructed jurors that Glossip paid him as much as $10,000 to kill Van Treese. In change for his testimony, prosecutors promised Sneed that he wouldn’t face the loss of life penalty.  

In 2015, the Supreme Court docket put Glossip’s execution (in addition to these of two different males) on maintain whereas it thought of their problem to the state’s deadly injection protocol. However by a vote of 5-4, the justices rejected that problem.

In June 2022, a legislation agency employed by Oklahoma legislators issued a 259-page report during which it discovered “grave doubt as to the integrity of Glossip’s homicide conviction and loss of life sentence.” The agency pointed to (amongst different issues) prosecutors’ “deliberate” destruction of “key bodily proof” and the “poor and curtailed police investigation.”

Glossip requested an Oklahoma courtroom to put aside his conviction and sentence final yr. In January 2023, he stated, he had acquired for the primary time recordsdata from the state indicating that prosecutors knew, however had not disclosed to Glossip or his attorneys, that Sneed had been prescribed lithium for bipolar dysfunction after his arrest. Sneed had stated that he was by accident prescribed the drug for a chilly. Prosecutors additionally allowed Sneed to testify falsely that he had by no means been handled by a psychiatrist.

Throughout the identical month, Drummond appointed a former district lawyer and Republican legislator, Rex Duncan, as an unbiased counsel to assessment Glossip’s case. In April 2023, after 600 hours of labor, Duncan reported that he believed a brand new trial was crucial as a result of Glossip had been disadvantaged of a good trial.

Based mostly on that report, Drummond joined Glossip’s request for the Oklahoma Court docket of Prison Appeals, the state’s highest courtroom for legal instances, to put aside his conviction, in addition to his plea for clemency from the state’s Pardon and Parole Board.

Each of these efforts to hunt reduction in Oklahoma have been denied, prompting Glossip (once more, with Drummond’s assist) to go to the Supreme Court docket, asking the justices to place his execution, scheduled for Might 18, 2023, on maintain to offer them extra time to think about his appeals.

The justices granted that request, and in January 2024 they agreed to take up Glossip’s case. With the state siding with Glossip, just a few weeks later the Supreme Court docket appointed Christopher Michel, a former clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts, to defend the choice by the Oklahoma Court docket of Prison Appeals leaving Glossip’s conviction and loss of life sentence in place.

In granting the case, the justices added a query for the events to deal with: Whether or not the Supreme Court docket has the ability to assessment the choice by the Oklahoma Court docket of Prison Appeals in any respect, or whether or not it’s as a substitute barred from doing so as a result of the choice rests on an “ample and unbiased state floor.” The Van Treese household, who imagine Glossip needs to be executed, assist this idea that the case is exterior the courtroom’s jurisdiction.

Michel contends that the Supreme Court docket can’t think about Glossip’s claims as a result of the state courtroom resolved them on a “paradigmatic” ample and unbiased state floor: It held that Glossip’s claims have been barred by a state legislation that prohibits courts in capital instances from reviewing points {that a} prisoner may have raised earlier. In doing so, he writes, the state courtroom utilized that legislation “primarily verbatim” in its opinion, with out referring to federal legislation.

Glossip counters that there’s a “excessive hurdle” to beat the presumption that the Supreme Court docket can assessment a state courtroom ruling on a difficulty of federal legislation. And on this case, he stresses, the state courtroom’s choice “relied immediately” on federal legislation – particularly, the Supreme Court docket’s 1963 choice in Brady v. Maryland, which requires prosecutors to show over any proof that’s favorable to the defendant and will have an effect on the choice about guilt or punishment, and its 1959 choice in Napue v. Illinois, holding that if prosecutors receive a conviction utilizing what they know is fake testimony, the conviction should be put aside if there may be “any cheap probability” that the false testimony may have affected the jury’s choice. The state courtroom dominated on the substance of Glossip’s claims associated to these instances, he notes, with out ever indicating that it was discussing the Supreme Court docket choices just for “steering”

Drummond provides that the state courtroom’s ruling couldn’t have rested on an “ample and unbiased state floor” for an additional motive. Because the lawyer normal, he explains, he can waive the applying of the state legislation on which the Oklahoma Court docket of Prison Appeals relied to make sure that justice is completed. He did so on this case, he writes, however the state courtroom rejected it – so far as the state is conscious, “for the primary time ever.” That sort of “unprecedented and unexplained barrier to reduction,” Drummond suggests, “is exactly the sort of ‘novel and unfounded’ rule that’s insufficient to” bar the Supreme Court docket from reviewing Glossip’s case.

However Michel disputes whether or not Drummond had particularly waived the applying of the state procedural legislation to Glossip on this continuing: His predecessor, Michel notes, did so in an earlier continuing however just for that continuing. So even when Drummond integrated the arguments made by his predecessor in earlier filings, that might not represent a waiver for functions of this case.

Glossip and Drummond’s arguments, Michel writes, boils all the way down to an argument “that the OCCA ought to have defined its holding extra completely or that its holding is improper. However neither of these positions is a sound foundation for this Court docket to assessment a state-court choice grounded in state legislation.”

The second query earlier than the courtroom goes to the guts of the case: Whether or not the justices ought to invalidate Glossip’s conviction and sentence as a result of prosecutors didn’t appropriate false testimony by Sneed and switch over proof which may have helped to clear Glossip.

Glossip contends that as a result of the prosecution’s “complete case hinged on Sneed’s credibility,” its failure to appropriate his false testimony that he had by no means seen a psychiatrist, and that he didn’t know why he had been prescribed lithium after his arrest (when he had an untreated however severe psychological well being dysfunction) was “essential.” For instance, Glossip posits, correcting Sneed’s testimony possible would have undermined his reliability as a witness, notably when that testimony was the one proof that immediately linked Glossip to Van Treese’s loss of life.

Drummond pushes again in opposition to the state courtroom’s suggestion that Sneed’s testimony was “not clearly false” as a result of he could have been “in denial of his psychological well being issues.” However “being in denial,” Drummond emphasizes, is just not an excuse for mendacity. And in any occasion, Drummond writes, no matter what Sneed could have believed, Napue’s bar on eliciting false testimony applies to prosecutors, not witnesses.

Equally, Glossip continues, if prosecutors had disclosed that Sneed had been handled by a psychiatrist and had been prescribed lithium, Glossip’s protection attorneys may have investigated Sneed’s psychological well being points, highlighted his lies on the stand, and recommended that his reminiscence of the crime was “extremely unreliable.” That in flip may have prompted the jury to be skeptical of Sneed’s testimony, Glossip argues.

Michel counters that Glossip’s claims for reduction hinge on a “vital overreading” of the prosecutor’s notes. The notes to which Glossip factors are so “cryptic” – containing solely the phrase “on Lithium?” and a reference to a health care provider – that they don’t really battle with Sneed’s testimony or assist Glossip, he says. However even when Glossip and the state are proper that having this data would have indicated to Glossip’s trial attorneys that Sneed had been prescribed lithium by a psychiatrist, he suggests, it’s unlikely to have mattered whether or not the jury had that extra data, moderately than merely figuring out (as they did) {that a} health-care supplier had prescribed lithium for Sneed.

Lastly, Drummond faults the state courtroom for failing to offer any weight to his conclusion that Glossip’s conviction and loss of life sentence needs to be put aside as a result of it’s “constitutionally unsupportable.” That call, he tells the justices, “sends a horrible sign to litigants by suggesting that the courts have a vested curiosity in preserving their ‘personal’ convictions.”

“Nothing within the Structure compels a state courtroom to supply a specific measure of deference to a state official’s confession of error,” Michel observes. However even when courts have been required to offer such confessions “respectful consideration,” he provides, the state courtroom happy that obligation “by acknowledging the Lawyer Normal’s place however disagreeing with it on the legislation and information.” Furthermore, he contends, a request like Drummond’s for courts to intervene and invalidate legal convictions creates “severe” considerations in regards to the division of energy between the three branches of presidency.

Justice Neil Gorsuch has recused himself from the proceedings in Glossip’s case to date, presumably as a result of he participated in certainly one of Glossip’s earlier appeals when he served as a decide on the U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the tenth Circuit, which incorporates Oklahoma.

This text was initially revealed at Howe on the Court docket.