By — Adam Kemp Adam Kemp Leave your feedback Share Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/3-big-takeaways-from-this-supreme-court-death-penalty-case Email Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Tumblr Share on Facebook Share on Twitter 3 big takeaways from this Supreme Court death penalty case Politics Oct 9, 2024 5:20 PM EST Supreme Court justices weighed Wednesday whether to grant a new trial to Richard Glossip, an Oklahoma man whose death row case has now come twice before the high court. Glossip, 61, has long maintained his innocence. He was convicted in 1998 for ordering the murder of Barry Van Treese the year earlier. On death row for more than 25 years, Glossip has had nine execution dates and three “last meals,” and has long sought to get his murder conviction and death sentence overturned. In attendance for Wednesday’s arguments was an unlikely advocate — Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who has argued that Glossip’s constitutional rights were violated during trial and that he deserves a new one. READ MORE: A new Supreme Court term begins in the shadow of a presidential election In 2015, Glossip joined other death row prisoners to challenge Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocols, though justices ultimately rejected their petition. Justices also intervened last year to halt Glossip’s scheduled execution after Drummond said his office had new evidence that cast doubts about the fairness of the original trial. Now, Glossip’s team claims the defense knowingly used false testimony from a key witness, who they believe carried out the murder. On Wednesday, justices examined the question of whether Glossip’s due process rights were violated at his original trial. Richard Glossip in prison, 2016. Photo courtesy of attorney Don Knight William Berry, a law professor at University of Mississippi, said the Supreme Court’s decision in the Glossip case could come down to a question of justice versus finality: Do the justices believe Glossip has exhausted all of his avenues already and stick with his conviction, or do they believe Glossip was denied justice? The case comes on the heels of other high-profile state execution cases. Berry cited the execution last month of Marcellus Williams in Missouri. Prosecutors in that case asked for the 55-year-old’s conviction to be overturned, citing concerns over tainted jury selection and evidence tampering. The justices opted not to grant a last-minute halt to Williams’ execution. “You have people in these [death penalty] cases that really don’t like to admit to making mistakes,” Berry said. “It’s a philosophical question not about whether we think this punishment is OK or not. I think people are starting to ask if the way we prosecute and try these cases is justifiable.” The case has also drawn criticism from some states that worry about the ramifications of a Supreme Court ruling for future state court decisions. It won’t be clear until next summer where the justices will land in the Glossip case, and the decision will not include Justice Neil Gorsuch, who recused himself from the proceedings. Here are some key takeaways about the arguments and what justices considered. Questions around a key witness Glossip was convicted of arranging the 1997 murder of Van Treese, the owner of a motel in Oklahoma City where Glossip worked as a manager. One name kept coming up in Wednesday’s arguments: Justin Sneed. In its case against Glossip, state prosecutors have relied on Sneed’s testimony that said Glossip orchestrated the killing. Sneed testified that Glossip offered him $10,000 to kill Van Treese. In return for his testimony, Sneed received a life sentence, avoiding the death penalty. “Richard Glossip was convicted on the word of one man, Justin Sneed, the undisputed murderer in this case,” Seth Waxman, a former solicitor general representing Glossip, said in his opening statement. Glossip’s attorneys argue that if the jury knew Sneed was lying on the stand about his prescribed use of lithium to treat bipolar disorder it would have affected the verdict. Some justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, questioned whether that still would have mattered. “Do you really think it would make that much of a difference to the jury?” Roberts asked Glossip’s attorneys. Justice Elena Kagan told Christopher Michel, the court’s appointed defender for Oklahoma, “Your one witness has been exposed as a liar.” “False is false. The critical question that a jury is asking is: Do I believe this guy and everything he says, and particularly, do I believe him when he points the finger at the accused?” Michel said he believes one lie from Sneed would not have made a difference. “If we were starting from the blank slate that the witness is presumed to be credible, one lie would be important,” Michel said. “In this case, the witness admitted that he beat a man to death with a baseball bat.” Kagan wasn’t convinced. “I have to say I find that an odd argument,” she said. “It’s like this witness was so not credible anyway that we don’t have to consider any further lies that he tells?” The court’s jurisdiction Seth Waxman, a former solicitor general representing death row prisoner Richard Glossip, is being sworn in during Wednesday’s oral arguments. Court sketch by Bill Hennessy The Supreme Court has to decide whether it has the jurisdiction to tell an Oklahoma court to honor the request of Drummond, who has asked that Glossip’s conviction be thrown out for the state’s handling of the case. “Attorney General Drummond did not confess error lightly,” Paul Clement, who spoke on behalf of the Oklahoma official, said in his opening remarks. Clement went on to say that Drummond remains a supporter of capital punishment, but that the state is obligated to give Glossip a new trial. Drummond has previously cited handwritten notes from Sneed’s attorney that appear to detail his client’s mental health treatments, arguing that the new evidence could undermine the state’s original conviction. “Oklahomans deserve to have absolute faith that the death penalty is administered fairly and with certainty,” Drummond told reporters following oral arguments. “Considering everything we know about this case, justice is not served by executing a man based on the testimony of a compromised witness.” Justice Kagan asked Michel, representing Oklahoma’s criminal court of appeals, whether a state court had ever denied a request by the state attorney general to reexamine a case. Michel answered that he had not “canvassed Oklahoma law” for more examples. Outside on the steps after oral arguments ended, Derek Van Treese, the son of Barry Van Treese, stood with his attorney to say despite Glossip’s case reaching the Supreme Court, he still believes Glossip is guilty and that justice will be served for himself and his family. We hope the Supreme Court “will uphold the conviction and will dismiss this case back to the state,” he told reporters after the arguments. “It’s been 27 years and we’ve been through the entire emotional gamut of frustration and anger and grief.” Conservative support for a new Glossip trial Among many of Glossip’s advocates for a new trial have been conservative lawmakers in Oklahoma. Oklahoma is a pro-death penalty state. It is second to Texas for the most executions in the U.S. since 1976, but leads the nation in executions per capita, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Among Glossip’s fiercest supporters are two Republican state lawmakers, J.J. Humphrey and Kevin McDugle, who have spoken about system-wide failures in Oklahoma’s justice system, including ineffective defense counsel and prosecutorial overreach. The two have called in recent years for a pause to all executions in Oklahoma and for a reexamination of all pending death row cases in the state. This case has also spawned an Oklahoma group, Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty, that is advocating for doing away with the practice entirely. Drummond, a Republican, is not seeking to exonerate Glossip, but believes he did not receive a fair trial. In a letter to the Supreme Court last year, Drummond wrote that it would be an “unthinkable” error if the execution was allowed to continue. Meanwhile, seven other states have asked the Supreme Court to uphold the Glossip conviction, writing that they “have a substantial interest in federal-court respect for state-court decisions.” Glossip’s execution is on hold until the Supreme Court makes its ruling, which is expected by June. By — Adam Kemp Adam Kemp Adam Kemp is a Communities Correspondent for the PBS NewsHour based in Oklahoma.
Supreme Court justices weighed Wednesday whether to grant a new trial to Richard Glossip, an Oklahoma man whose death row case has now come twice before the high court. Glossip, 61, has long maintained his innocence. He was convicted in 1998 for ordering the murder of Barry Van Treese the year earlier. On death row for more than 25 years, Glossip has had nine execution dates and three “last meals,” and has long sought to get his murder conviction and death sentence overturned. In attendance for Wednesday’s arguments was an unlikely advocate — Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who has argued that Glossip’s constitutional rights were violated during trial and that he deserves a new one. READ MORE: A new Supreme Court term begins in the shadow of a presidential election In 2015, Glossip joined other death row prisoners to challenge Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocols, though justices ultimately rejected their petition. Justices also intervened last year to halt Glossip’s scheduled execution after Drummond said his office had new evidence that cast doubts about the fairness of the original trial. Now, Glossip’s team claims the defense knowingly used false testimony from a key witness, who they believe carried out the murder. On Wednesday, justices examined the question of whether Glossip’s due process rights were violated at his original trial. Richard Glossip in prison, 2016. Photo courtesy of attorney Don Knight William Berry, a law professor at University of Mississippi, said the Supreme Court’s decision in the Glossip case could come down to a question of justice versus finality: Do the justices believe Glossip has exhausted all of his avenues already and stick with his conviction, or do they believe Glossip was denied justice? The case comes on the heels of other high-profile state execution cases. Berry cited the execution last month of Marcellus Williams in Missouri. Prosecutors in that case asked for the 55-year-old’s conviction to be overturned, citing concerns over tainted jury selection and evidence tampering. The justices opted not to grant a last-minute halt to Williams’ execution. “You have people in these [death penalty] cases that really don’t like to admit to making mistakes,” Berry said. “It’s a philosophical question not about whether we think this punishment is OK or not. I think people are starting to ask if the way we prosecute and try these cases is justifiable.” The case has also drawn criticism from some states that worry about the ramifications of a Supreme Court ruling for future state court decisions. It won’t be clear until next summer where the justices will land in the Glossip case, and the decision will not include Justice Neil Gorsuch, who recused himself from the proceedings. Here are some key takeaways about the arguments and what justices considered. Questions around a key witness Glossip was convicted of arranging the 1997 murder of Van Treese, the owner of a motel in Oklahoma City where Glossip worked as a manager. One name kept coming up in Wednesday’s arguments: Justin Sneed. In its case against Glossip, state prosecutors have relied on Sneed’s testimony that said Glossip orchestrated the killing. Sneed testified that Glossip offered him $10,000 to kill Van Treese. In return for his testimony, Sneed received a life sentence, avoiding the death penalty. “Richard Glossip was convicted on the word of one man, Justin Sneed, the undisputed murderer in this case,” Seth Waxman, a former solicitor general representing Glossip, said in his opening statement. Glossip’s attorneys argue that if the jury knew Sneed was lying on the stand about his prescribed use of lithium to treat bipolar disorder it would have affected the verdict. Some justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, questioned whether that still would have mattered. “Do you really think it would make that much of a difference to the jury?” Roberts asked Glossip’s attorneys. Justice Elena Kagan told Christopher Michel, the court’s appointed defender for Oklahoma, “Your one witness has been exposed as a liar.” “False is false. The critical question that a jury is asking is: Do I believe this guy and everything he says, and particularly, do I believe him when he points the finger at the accused?” Michel said he believes one lie from Sneed would not have made a difference. “If we were starting from the blank slate that the witness is presumed to be credible, one lie would be important,” Michel said. “In this case, the witness admitted that he beat a man to death with a baseball bat.” Kagan wasn’t convinced. “I have to say I find that an odd argument,” she said. “It’s like this witness was so not credible anyway that we don’t have to consider any further lies that he tells?” The court’s jurisdiction Seth Waxman, a former solicitor general representing death row prisoner Richard Glossip, is being sworn in during Wednesday’s oral arguments. Court sketch by Bill Hennessy The Supreme Court has to decide whether it has the jurisdiction to tell an Oklahoma court to honor the request of Drummond, who has asked that Glossip’s conviction be thrown out for the state’s handling of the case. “Attorney General Drummond did not confess error lightly,” Paul Clement, who spoke on behalf of the Oklahoma official, said in his opening remarks. Clement went on to say that Drummond remains a supporter of capital punishment, but that the state is obligated to give Glossip a new trial. Drummond has previously cited handwritten notes from Sneed’s attorney that appear to detail his client’s mental health treatments, arguing that the new evidence could undermine the state’s original conviction. “Oklahomans deserve to have absolute faith that the death penalty is administered fairly and with certainty,” Drummond told reporters following oral arguments. “Considering everything we know about this case, justice is not served by executing a man based on the testimony of a compromised witness.” Justice Kagan asked Michel, representing Oklahoma’s criminal court of appeals, whether a state court had ever denied a request by the state attorney general to reexamine a case. Michel answered that he had not “canvassed Oklahoma law” for more examples. Outside on the steps after oral arguments ended, Derek Van Treese, the son of Barry Van Treese, stood with his attorney to say despite Glossip’s case reaching the Supreme Court, he still believes Glossip is guilty and that justice will be served for himself and his family. We hope the Supreme Court “will uphold the conviction and will dismiss this case back to the state,” he told reporters after the arguments. “It’s been 27 years and we’ve been through the entire emotional gamut of frustration and anger and grief.” Conservative support for a new Glossip trial Among many of Glossip’s advocates for a new trial have been conservative lawmakers in Oklahoma. Oklahoma is a pro-death penalty state. It is second to Texas for the most executions in the U.S. since 1976, but leads the nation in executions per capita, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Among Glossip’s fiercest supporters are two Republican state lawmakers, J.J. Humphrey and Kevin McDugle, who have spoken about system-wide failures in Oklahoma’s justice system, including ineffective defense counsel and prosecutorial overreach. The two have called in recent years for a pause to all executions in Oklahoma and for a reexamination of all pending death row cases in the state. This case has also spawned an Oklahoma group, Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty, that is advocating for doing away with the practice entirely. Drummond, a Republican, is not seeking to exonerate Glossip, but believes he did not receive a fair trial. In a letter to the Supreme Court last year, Drummond wrote that it would be an “unthinkable” error if the execution was allowed to continue. Meanwhile, seven other states have asked the Supreme Court to uphold the Glossip conviction, writing that they “have a substantial interest in federal-court respect for state-court decisions.” Glossip’s execution is on hold until the Supreme Court makes its ruling, which is expected by June.