Oklahoma to retry Richard Glossip for non-capital murder after Supreme Court threw out conviction
Oklahoma's top prosecutor said Monday that the state intends to retry Richard Glossip for murder but seek only a life sentence, after the Supreme Court threw out the death row inmate's capital conviction.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond (R) supported Glossip's bid to overturn his conviction in a 1997 murder-for-hire plot, agreeing that the prisoner received an 'unfair and unreliable' trial. However, he maintained that he does not believe Glossip is innocent.
The justices in February ruled that Glossip's due process rights were violated, tossing his conviction and ordering a new trial in a rare victory for a death row inmate at the high court, which typically does not intervene in such cases.
'While it was clear to me and to the U.S. Supreme Court that Mr. Glossip did not receive a fair trial, I have never proclaimed his innocence,' Drummond said in a statement on Monday. 'After the high court remanded the matter back to district court, my office thoroughly reviewed the merits of the case against Richard Glossip and concluded that sufficient evidence exists to secure a murder conviction.
'The same United States Constitution that guarantees our rights also ensures the rights of the accused,' he continued. 'Unlike past prosecutors who allowed a key witness to lie on the stand, my office will make sure Mr. Glossip receives a fair trial based on hard facts, solid evidence and truthful testimony.'
Glossip was convicted for the 1997 killing of his former boss, Barry Van Treese. The motel owner was beaten to death by maintenance worker Justin Sneed but state prosecutors said Glossip ordered him to carry out the crime in a murder-for-hire scheme.
Sneed evaded the death penalty by agreeing to plead guilty and testify against Glossip, earning a life sentence in prison instead. Glossip was found guilty and given a death sentence in 1998, but that conviction was overturned due to ineffective counsel on appeal. He was retried in 2004 and again convicted and sentenced to death.
However, Glossip said the state denied him due process by withholding evidence from the defense and knowingly letting the jury hear false testimony from Sneed, a key witness. Drummond emerged as an unlikely ally to Glossip during his appeal.
'We conclude that the prosecution's failure to correct Sneed's trial testimony violated the Due Process Clause,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority.
Sotomayor's majority opinion was joined by four other justices. Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred in part and dissented in part. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, which Justice Samuel Alito joined. And Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the case, likely because he participated in one of Glossip's earlier appeals while serving on a lower court.
Drummond said his office would not seek the death penalty against Glossip because Sneed, who admitted to killing Van Treese, is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole.
Glossip's next court date is set for June 17.
'The Van Treese family has endured grief, pain and frustration since the murder of their loved one, and my heart goes out to them,' Drummond said. 'The poor judgment and previous misconduct of past prosecutors have only compounded that pain and frustration.
'While I cannot go back 25 years and handle the case in the proper way that would have ensured true justice, I still have a duty to seek the justice that is available today,' he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Will Trump face another hush money trial after leaving office?
Will there be another hush money trial against Donald Trump after he leaves office? The possibility is raised by the president's pending appeal, which was the subject of a hearing Wednesday. But the issue at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit wasn't whether Trump's state conviction will be overturned, but where his attempt to overturn it will proceed: in state court or federal court, with the president pushing for the federal route. The hearing left it unclear what the three-judge panel will decide. But regardless of where the appeal moves forward, the Supreme Court can have the last word. And that last word could be that Trump deserves a new trial, based on its immunity ruling last summer. Before the immunity ruling came down last year, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of falsifying business records, for covering up a 2016 election conspiracy involving hush money paid to adult film star Stormy Daniels. Trump's former fixer Michael Cohen paid her to stay quiet during the 2016 presidential campaign about her claim that she had sex with Trump, which he denied. He won the election. The Supreme Court declined to halt Trump's sentencing before he retook the White House after winning the 2024 election. Splitting 5-4, the justices said Trump's argument that evidence introduced at the trial violated the immunity ruling can be addressed in his appeal. The majority also cited the fact that he was going to receive an 'unconditional discharge,' a penalty-free sentence as a courtesy to the then-incoming president, which he received before taking office again. Now back in office, Trump is pressing to undo the historic conviction. He's represented by new private lawyers because he named his lawyers who lost the hush money trial, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, to top posts in the Justice Department (which is backing Trump's removal bid). At Wednesday's hearing, his lawyer Jeff Wall, who was a top DOJ lawyer during Trump's first term and is now in private practice, sought to persuade the panel that the case should move to federal court, while a prosecutor from Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's office said it should stay in state court. More specifically, Trump's lawyers have argued that he's 'entitled to a federal forum to seek relief based on federal constitutional defenses rooted in structural protections for the institution of the Presidency and the Supremacy Clause,' referring to the constitutional provision placing federal law over state law. Bragg has argued, among other things, that the removal issue is moot now that Trump has been sentenced and that the case should stay the normal course through the state appellate process. But whether or not Trump wins or loses his removal bid — we don't know when the panel will decide — the justices can take appeals from state or federal courts. If the appeal reaches the justices again, we know from Trump's failure to halt his sentencing that the four dissenting justices (all Republican appointees) were ready to provide him that extraordinary relief. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett were in the majority rejecting Trump's motion in January, but at least Roberts, who authored the immunity ruling that Barrett didn't fully join, could form a majority to side with Trump on the merits of his appeal. Whatever the circuit panel decides on removal, it could be a while before the Supreme Court ultimately decides whether Trump's state conviction stands. But whenever that happens, the justices could say that a new trial is warranted; that, in turn, would raise the question of whether the president would have another hush money trial waiting for him when he leaves office. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Harvey Weinstein found guilty of sex crime at retrial in New York, acquitted on one charge
Disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein has been found guilty of committing a sex crime by a jury in New York, more than a year after the state Supreme Court overturned his 2020 conviction on felony sex crime charges. A jury of seven women and five men returned a partial verdict on Wednesday, finding Weinstein guilty of a first-degree criminal sexual act. The jury acquitted him on a second count of first-degree criminal sexual act, and it did not reach a unanimous verdict on a count of third-degree rape. Jurors will continue to deliberate on the third-degree rape count on Thursday, NBC News reported. This time around, the charges stemmed from allegations that Weinstein raped aspiring actor Jessica Mann in 2013 and that he forcibly performed oral sex on two others, former 'Project Runway' production assistant Miriam Haley and former model Kaja Sokola in 2006. Sokola's accusation was not included in Weinstein's first trial. The jury on Wednesday found him guilty of committing a criminal sex act against Haley; it found him not guilty on the charge related to Sokola; and it will continue to deliberate on the rape charge as it relates to Mann. Weinstein has maintained that all of the sexual encounters were consensual. He did not testify in this trial or during his 2020 trial. Weinstein's conviction comes more than five years after he was convicted of felony sex crimes at his first Manhattan trial, which was a watershed moment for the #MeToo movement. He was sentenced to 23 years in prison. Then, in early 2023, he was sentenced to 16 years in prison after being convicted of sex crimes in Los Angeles. He was ordered to serve those sentences consecutively, essentially ensuring that the once-powerful entertainment mogul, now 73, would spend the rest of his life in prison. But his New York conviction was overturned by the state's high court in April 2024, after the justices determined in a 4-3 ruling that he did not get a fair trial. Almost immediately after, Manhattan prosecutors said that they would seek a retrial. Since then, Weinstein has been languishing in New York City's notorious Rikers Island jail, with his attorneys saying that the facility's conditions have exacerbated his health issues. This is a developing story. Check back for updates. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
What CFOs should take away from the Ames v. Ohio decision
This story was originally published on To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily newsletter. In a landmark decision on June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services struck down the Sixth Circuit's 'background circumstances' rule, leveling the playing field for Title VII discrimination claims by now allowing all employees — regardless of their majority or minority status — to face the same evidentiary standard. For CFOs, this ruling signals heightened litigation risks and a need to consult with human resource leaders about hiring practices and potentially politically driven narratives being woven into corporate goals and messaging. In this collaboration, it's not just about a need for robust compliance strategies, but also an opportunity to assess the politicization of leadership and the organization's workforce. As companies face potential increases in lawsuits from majority-group employees who may have fallen victim to race, gender or sexual orientation based-discrimination in the name of a corporate DEI policy, financial leaders may have to reassess budgets for legal reserves, audit the contents of DEI programs in risk mitigation efforts and conduct workforce and pay equity audits to safeguard against costly claims and reputational damage. The case goes as follows: Marlean Ames was hired in 2004 by the Ohio Department of Youth Services as an executive secretary and was later promoted to a program administrator. In 2019, she applied for a management position but was denied in favor of a lesbian woman. Shortly after, she was demoted to her original secretarial role with a pay cut, and a gay man was hired as program administrator. In response, Ames filed a lawsuit under Title VII, alleging discrimination based on her sexual orientation. The issue at hand with Ames, who is a heterosexual white woman, was whether Title VII plaintiffs who are members of majority groups (e.g., heterosexuals and white people) must meet a heightened evidentiary standard, specifically the Sixth Circuit's 'background circumstances' rule, to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas legal framework. After multiple appeals to decisions requiring Ames to show a higher level of evidentiary standard, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Ames and has now unanimously agreed to repeal this extra burden of proof from what previously was determined as a 'majority' status. Legal experts now say this opens the door to new risk for CFOs. 'In the Ames case, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the legal standard for an employee to bring a discrimination lawsuit against their employer is the same, whether or not the employee is a member of a majority group or in the minority,' said Julie Levinson Werner, partner and vice chair of employment at Lowenstein Sandler. 'Previously, many courts around the country held that majority group plaintiffs, such as white men, had to also show 'background circumstances' that the employer was the unusual employer that discriminated against the majority,' Werner continued. 'Now, based upon the Court's decision, there is no longer the concept of a 'reverse discrimination' case, and any employee can sue their employer if they believe they have been subject to discrimination based upon their race, gender, ethnicity, etc.' Jasmine Ahmed, who has held multiple roles in global financial leadership and now provides fractional CFO services, said that, regardless of guidance, finance teams who are unintentionally diverse, in her experience, have always performed better. However, she says the politicization of the issue around DEI has drawn attention away from addressing challenges and into an attack on merit. Having a merit-based professional approach that comes with hard work and grit, she says, are core fundamentals of working and growing careers in corporate finance. 'If you ask any hiring manager, 'If you had complete autonomy, what would you want?' it doesn't matter if it's in finance or not — the answer is always the same,' Ahmed said. 'I've never met anyone who says, 'I want to hire someone underqualified.' What do we hear instead? 'I want the best person for the job' because when the best person does the job, life is easier.' Ahmed said this is a core component of finding talent in finance, and using merit as an indicator of talent shouldn't be a political issue. 'That basic idea isn't political,' she said, 'it's rooted in qualifications, skills, experience and mindset. Those are the components of merit.' Ahmed said finance leaders can take steps to proactively work against ideas of race or sexuality playing a role in growth at their organizations by making sure merit and skill sets are the groundwork for talent evaluation. 'If you look at my track record, go research who's been on my teams, you'll see a pattern,' Ahmed said. 'Not only were they high-performing, they were also diverse. But that wasn't by design. It came from a culture that promotes merit.' She said she rejected traditional hiring tactics she saw in her career as part of this strategy. 'What was different [with my teams] is I didn't allow nepotism,' she said. 'I made talent development a priority for everyone. It wasn't just about performance, it was about developing people and holding managers accountable for doing the same. When you do that, you naturally build a strong, diverse bench.' When asked if she's ever seen a DEI policy in her experience that wasn't about box checking or politics, Ahmed candidly explained that she has not. 'Unfortunately, no,' she said. 'Around the time of COVID and Black Lives Matter, DEI was the hot topic. What did we do? We started filling roles with either African Americans or white women, and at the time, I thought, hold on, DEI isn't about checking a box or meeting quotas.' She went on to explain how the narrative around DEI in the CFO community is now being tackled as a labor issue, a challenge that has been talked about for years. 'I go to conferences and hear the same thing: 'Talent is our big issue.' And I ask, 'What are you doing about it?' We've been talking about the problem for years, but we don't take action.' For those who are building careers around the industry of DEI policies and their incorporation into the workforce, the court's ruling creates a new challenge. However, for Sheryl Daija, CEO of BRIDGE, a DEI and action-oriented, member-driven 501c6 trade group for the global marketing industry, the ruling is a portrayal of 'civil rights protections as preferential treatment.' 'By eliminating the 'background circumstances' standard, the Court has made it easier for majority-group plaintiffs to bring discrimination claims without addressing the ongoing structural barriers that underrepresented communities continue to face,' said Daija. 'The concurrence by Justices [Clarence] Thomas and [Neil] Gorsuch reveals the deeper motive: a sustained campaign to discredit DEI.' Daija went on to connect the language used by the justices in the concurring opinion to a political narrative against DEI policies. 'Their language [that is] citing briefs that call DEI an 'obsession' that causes 'overt discrimination' against majority groups signals hostility toward the very initiatives designed to correct long-standing inequities,' she said. Ahmed said organizations will likely follow one of two paths. 'One will ignore these issues, avoid the politics and take no real action, and they'll be blindsided,' she said. 'Their risk profile will go up, their teams will underperform, their innovation will stall.' She said the second group will take a more strategic approach and be much better off. 'They'll focus on solving the root problem, building strong, inclusive and high-performing talent for the future. If you solve for that, many of the risks and challenges will work themselves out over time.' Though she said this is seldom done in organizations she's familiar with, decisions like this — legal catalysts that come with a potential risk to the organizational growth projections — are sometimes what's needed to kick things into gear in a new direction. 'Culture is the hardest thing to change,' she said. 'I always tell clients, transformation is simple if you get the mindset right. With the right culture, people behave well even when no one's watching. You don't need as many rules, and everything becomes easier, but culture is also the one thing most executives don't invest in seriously.' Recommended Reading How CFOs can navigate DEI, its pullback and any legal repercussions in 2025
