WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court returns to the case of Richard Glossip, who spent most of the past quarter century on Oklahoma’s death row for a murder he says he didn’t commit.
In a rare alliance, lawyers for Glossip and the state will argue Wednesday that judges should overturn Glossip’s conviction and death sentence because he did not receive a fair trial.
The victim’s relatives told the Supreme Court that they want to see Glossip executed.
Glossip has maintained his innocence in the 1997 Oklahoma City murder of his former boss, motel owner Barry Van Treese, which prosecutors say was a murder-for-hire.
Another man, Justin Sneedadmitted to robbing Van Treese and beating him to death with a baseball bat, but testified that he did so only after Glossip promised to pay him $10,000. Sneed received a life sentence in exchange for his testimony and was the key witness against Glossip.
But evidence that emerged only last year convinced Oklahoma’s attorney general Genter Drummonda Republican, that Glossip did not receive a fair trial.
One of Drummond’s concerns is that prosecutors withheld evidence about Sneed’s psychiatric condition that could have undermined his testimony. Drummond also cited a box of evidence in the case that was destroyed that could have helped Glossip’s defense.
The court is grappling with two legal issues. The judges will consider whether Glossip’s rights were violated because the evidence was not turned over. They will also weigh whether the Oklahoma court decision upholding the conviction and sentence rendered after the state’s position was changed should remain in effect.
Prosecutors in at least three other death penalty cases in Alabama and Texas have urged that death row inmates be given a new trial or at least spared the prospect of execution. The prisoners are: Toforest Johnson in AlabamaAnd Melissa Lucio And Areli Escobar in Texas. In another similar case, the judges denied a last-minute reprieve for Marcellus Williams Missouri was executed last month.
The justices issued their most recent order last year to block Glossip’s execution. They previously halted his execution in 2015 and then ruled against him in a 5-4 vote to uphold Oklahoma’s lethal injection process. He avoided execution at the time only because of a mix-up of the drugs used.
Glossip was initially convicted in 1998, but won a new trial ordered by a state appeals court. He was convicted again in 2004.
Two former attorneys general, Seth Waxman and Paul Clement, represent Glossip and Oklahoma, respectively, before the Supreme Court. Christopher Michel, a court-appointed attorney, defends the Oklahoma court’s ruling that Glossip should be put to death.
More than one six states have also weighed in on the case, asking the Supreme Court to uphold Glossip’s conviction, arguing that they have a “substantial interest” in the federal court’s deference to state court decisions.
Judge Neil Gorsuch is presiding over the case, presumably because he participated in it earlier when he was an appellate judge.
A decision is expected early summer.