Death Row Inmate Richard Glossip To Receive New Trial

Richard Glossip’s death sentence has been overturned, opening the door for a new trial and raising questions about the integrity of the original prosecution.

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court ordered a new trial for Richard Glossip, reversing his conviction and death sentence.
Concerns over key witness Justin Sneed’s credibility played a significant role in the decision.
The Oklahoma Attorney General supported the bid for a new trial citing trial errors.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing the Supreme Court overstepped its jurisdiction.
The court found a violation of Glossip’s constitutional rights with undisclosed evidence.

Supreme Court Overturns Glossip’s Conviction

The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 to overturn Richard Glossip’s conviction and death sentence, allowing for a new trial. The decision came after reviewing multiple factors, chiefly the prosecution’s failure to correct false testimony from a key witness, Justin Sneed. The ruling overturned the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ previous decision. Supporting their judgment, the court found that the failure to disclose pertinent information regarding Sneed’s psychiatric treatment infringed upon Glossip’s right to a fair trial.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, delivered the opinion. They concluded the prosecution violated its duty to correct the false testimony given by Justin Sneed, who had claimed that Glossip paid him to commit the murder. As the star witness, Sneed’s credibility was critical, and the withheld evidence regarding his mental health history proved substantial in reconsidering the case.

The Supreme Court throws out Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip’s murder conviction because a key witness lied in court and prosecutors withheld information about him. https://t.co/8tmh8FtZH5

— NBC Bay Area (@nbcbayarea) February 25, 2025

Dissenting Opinion and State Support

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, dissented, expressing that the Supreme Court lacked the authority to overturn state court decisions. He criticized the majority’s ruling: “The court’s decision distorts our jurisdiction, imagines a constitutional violation where none occurred, and abandons basic principles governing the disposition of state-court appeals.” This dissent highlights the tension between federal oversight and state sovereignty in judicial proceedings.

Despite the dissent, Oklahoma’s Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond supported a retrial due to the trial errors. New evidence suggested Glossip may not have received a fair trial initially, prompting Drummond to align with Glossip’s defense in seeking justice. Glossip has maintained his innocence, claiming that the manipulated testimony played a role in his conviction.

Impact of New Evidence

The court emphasized the critical nature of Justin Sneed’s undisclosed psychiatric treatment on his credibility. Sneed, serving life in exchange for testimony against Glossip, had his credibility further questioned with the emergence of previously undisclosed information. Justice Sotomayor had emphasized in her assessment the importance of credibility in witness testimonies: “Had the prosecution corrected Sneed on the stand, his credibility plainly would have suffered.” The court concluded that the withheld evidence was significant enough to impact the jury’s perception and overall decision, legitimizing the call for a new trial.

Glossip had faced multiple execution dates due to previous charges related to the 1997 murder of motel owner Barry Van Treese. This decision marks a significant moment in the justice system’s ongoing examination of processes and the necessity for equitable legal practices. As the legal proceedings advance, Glossip awaits the possibility of a fair retrial that considers all evidence and testimonies comprehensively.