logo
Oklahoma inmate Richard Glossip to face new murder trial but without death penalty

Oklahoma inmate Richard Glossip to face new murder trial but without death penalty

Yahoo2 days ago

Oklahoma's top prosecutor said Monday that the state intends to pursue a new murder trial against Richard Glossip but without the death penalty after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated his capital conviction in a rare victory for a death row prisoner.
State Attorney General Gentner Drummond's decision to retry Glossip, 62, on a first-degree murder charge came out of a status conference hearing. Drummond said in a news release that the evidence still implicates Glossip in the 1997 murder of Oklahoma City motel owner Barry Van Treese.
Glossip, a motel manager working for Van Treese, has maintained his innocence while on death row for almost three decades.
While Drummond, a Republican, has not agreed with Glossip's innocence claims, he was supportive of the Supreme Court's ruling in February, when the majority of justices agreed, as Drummond put it, that "it is now an undeniable fact that he did not receive a fair trial."
Drummond said Monday that he would ensure Glossip now receives an impartial trial.
"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. "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."
Oklahoma County District Attorney Vicki Behenna, a Democrat, had previously indicated that Glossip would not be eligible for the death penalty now if he were to be retried.
Drummond said he would seek a life sentence for Glossip at his next trial.
"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 added.
The continuation of the state's prosecution against Glossip resumes a twisting case that saw him dodge death several times with nine separate execution dates that had to be postponed. Various courts delayed the executions as he appealed, while state corrections officials also came under scrutiny a decade ago for botched execution attempts.
But Glossip's case had been championed in recent years by a bipartisan group of Oklahoma legislators after an independent report they commissioned in 2022 found that "no reasonable jury hearing the complete record would convict Glossip of first-degree murder."
The report centered on the state's primary witness, Justin Sneed, who had confirmed to the report's investigators that he had discussions with multiple family members about "recanting" his testimony over an 11-year period. Investigators also said the district attorney's case file included documentation describing how the state provided Sneed information "so he could conform his testimony to match the evidence" from other witnesses.
Glossip's original 1998 conviction was overturned in 2001, when a state appeals court found that the evidence against him was weak. But the state took him to trial again, and a second jury found him guilty in 2004.
At Glossip's trial, Sneed, a motel handyman, admitted that he had killed Van Treese, but said that it was at Glossip's direction and that he had been promised $10,000. In exchange for testifying against Glossip, Sneed received a life sentence while Glossip was given the death penalty.
Prosecutors said Glossip orchestrated the plot because he was embezzling from the motel and feared being fired.
The Supreme Court on Monday tossed out Glossip's capital conviction in a 5-3 ruling. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate, presumably because he was involved in the case when he was on a federal appeals court that includes Oklahoma.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority's ruling that prosecutors "knew Sneed's statements were false" and that "because Sneed's testimony was the only direct evidence of Glossip's guilt of capital murder, the jury's assessment of Sneed's credibility was necessarily determinative here."
"Hence, there is a reasonable likelihood that correcting Sneed's testimony would have affected the judgment of the jury," she added.
After the Supreme Court's decision, Glossip was moved off death row, but was held without bail in the Oklahoma County Detention Center on a first-degree murder charge.
A next court date in Glossip's case is scheduled for June 17.
Glossip's attorney, Don Knight, did not immediately comment about the prosecutors' decision, but he welcomed the Supreme Court's ruling in February that spared his longtime client from the death chamber.
"He had nine execution dates, three last meals, and obviously, to finally get relief has been huge for him," Knight said, "and he's thrilled beyond words."
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Nancy Mace said 'due process is for citizens.' Here's who it's really for
Nancy Mace said 'due process is for citizens.' Here's who it's really for

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Nancy Mace said 'due process is for citizens.' Here's who it's really for

In early June 2025, Republican U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina wrote an X post (archived) that read: "Due process is for citizens." Her comment had been viewed more than 2.4 million times as of this writing and had amassed more than 6,500 likes. The same claim has appeared in multiple X posts. In a similar tone, in May 2025, another X user wrote: "Due process is for citizens, not invaders." (X user @NancyMace) In short, due process is the legal principle that the government must follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty or property. It serves as a safeguard against arbitrary actions by the state, ensuring that people are treated justly under the law. For a more detailed explanation, see our full breakdown in this article on former President Bill Clinton's 1996 immigration law. While Mace's post did not explicitly say that due process protections are, or should be, limited to only U.S. citizens, her replies below the post reinforced that interpretation. However, the U.S. Constitution protects all "persons," not just citizens, under the due-process clauses of the Fifth and 14th amendments. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that these protections apply to anyone physically present in the United States regardless of citizenship or immigration status. An MSNBC article on the topic similarly concluded that Mace's "implication … that noncitizens don't get that protection" was "incorrect." The South Carolina representative doubled down on her stance in the replies below her post, suggesting that noncitizens should not be entitled to due-process protections in the U.S. For example, when one X user wrote, "The Constitution doesn't say 'only citizens.' Due process applies to persons — that includes non-citizens. That's settled law," Mace replied by saying: "Skip due process coming in, don't expect it going out. Citizens first!" Other replies further suggested she believed only U.S. citizens should be entitled to such protections (archived, archived, archived). (X users @FJBIDEN_22 and @NancyMace) These exchanges were not the first time Mace commented on due process. In late May 2025, she weighed in on the principle in response to a federal judge's decision to block the deportation of eight noncitizens convicted of violent crimes. The day before U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued a 17-page order in which he emphasized that "the Court recognizes that the class members at issue here have criminal histories. But that does not change due process," Mace criticized the ruling, telling Fox News (archived): "They didn't want due process on their way in illegally, they shouldn't get due process on their way out." However, the representative's comments about due process contradicted remarks she made about the principle in the past. In February 2023, Mace wrote on X (archived): "Everyone deserves the right to due process. Even those we vehemently oppose." (X user @NancyMace) Snopes has reached out to Mace for comment on whether she maintains that due-process protections should apply only to U.S. citizens and how she reconciles that view with her 2023 statement. We will update this article if we receive a response. The U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process appears in the Fifth and 14th amendments, both of which state that no person should be deprived "of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." As shown, the language uses "person," not "citizen," with regard to due-process protections. Further, the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted that due-process protections apply to everyone within U.S. borders regardless of citizenship or immigration status. In Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel Mezei (1953) the Court emphasized (Page 212) that "aliens who have once passed through [U.S.] gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness-encompassed in due process of law." Similarly, in cases such as Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) and earlier decisions dating back more than a century, the Supreme Court made clear that the government cannot detain or deport people arbitrarily. In the 2001 case, the Court underscored that "the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." In simple words, noncitizens must be given fair procedures, such as notice or a "credible fear interview," before being deprived of their liberty. The Supreme Court expressed the same view in the case of Reno v. Flores (1993), stating: "It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings." This was not the first time Snopes addressed a claim regarding Mace. For instance, in late May 2025, we investigated a rumor that she ordered staffers to create burner accounts to promote her online. Meanwhile, earlier in June 2025, we also fact-checked a rumor about whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, signed by Clinton, allowed deportation without due process. "327K Views · 15K Reactions | Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) Responds to Arguments That Illegal Immigrants Convicted of Heinous Crimes Deserve Due Process after a Judge Blocks a Deportation Flight to South Sudan | 'They Didn't Want Due Process on Their Way in Illegally, They Shouldn't Get Due Process on Their Way Out.' Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) Responds to Arguments... | by Fox News | Facebook." 2022, Accessed 6 June 2025. "U.S. Constitution - Fifth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." 15 Dec. 1791, Constitution Annotated. "U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." 9 July 1868, Deng, Grace. "Did Nancy Mace Order Staffers to Create Burner Accounts to Promote Her Online? Here's What We Know." Snopes, 30 May 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. Dunbar, Marina. "Court Halts Trump Administration's Effort to Send Eight Men to South Sudan." The Guardian, The Guardian, 23 May 2025, Gabbatt, Adam. "Group Stranded with Ice in Djibouti Shipping Container after Removal from US." The Guardian, The Guardian, 6 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. " 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)." Justia Law, Rubin, Jordan. "Due Process Is Not Limited to Citizens, Contrary to Nancy Mace's Claim." MSNBC, 4 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. Wrona, Aleksandra. "Bill Clinton Did Not Sign Law in 1996 Allowing Deportation without Due Process." Snopes, 5 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)." Justia Law,

California lawmakers condemn violence amid anti-immigration raid protests
California lawmakers condemn violence amid anti-immigration raid protests

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

California lawmakers condemn violence amid anti-immigration raid protests

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KGET) — Central Valley lawmakers spoke out against violent protesters as California residents, including those in Bakersfield, continue to protest against immigration enforcement. In a statement released on Wednesday, Assemblywoman Dr. Jasmeet Bains said while Americans have the right to protest forcefully but peacefully, she has no tolerance for 'masked crowds that loot stores and burn the American flag.' Bains went on to criticize politicians who interfere with law enforcement, pointing out President Donald Trump in particular. Protesters gather at downtown Liberty Bell for 2nd time as fear lingers over immigration raids 'A president who pardons felons who assault police officers should have kept his nose out of law enforcement's business,' Bains said in her statement, referring back to the Jan. 6 rioters pardoned by Trump in January. 'I don't want to see another TV interview with Trump, the Governor, or any other politician acting tough,' Bains said. 'Let our law enforcement leaders speak, give them what they need to restore order, and then get out of their way.' Protests against ICE agents and immigration enforcement activities have been roiling through Los Angeles, where Trump recently deployed the National Guard and the Marines in response. While there are no reports of immigration enforcement officers in Kern County as of June 11, a widespread fear took over the community in recent months when a sudden immigration raid in January targeted farm workers and laborers in the community. Since Monday, Bakersfield residents have protested against ICE raids in solidarity with L.A. On Tuesday, Congressman David Valadao announced his joining of a Republican delegation to introduce a resolution formally condemning the riots in L.A. Valadao shared similar words of opposition to violence and vandalism as Bains, but also urged Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to 'restore peace' to California's streets through the resolution. 'Standing for law and order should be common sense, and ICE should continue to prioritize the removal of known criminals from our country,' Valadao said in a press release. Congressman Vince Fong heavily criticized Newsom and the protesters in L.A., calling Newsom's refusal to allow local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with federal agents 'disgraceful.' In an interview with NewsNation, Fong accused Newsom of refusing to protect federal agents and buildings, saying downtown L.A. is 'under siege' due to the protests. Never miss a story: Make your homepage 'You have search warrants that are being issued, approved by judges, arrests are being made on illegal immigrants that have committed heinous crimes, and the governor of California is opposed to that and won't allow the cooperation of state and local law enforcement to work with federal officials? I mean, this is the height of irresponsibility,' Fong said. Fong said he wants to see the 'progressive groups that are hellbent on destroying downtown L.A.' get arrested and be held accountable for damages. 'The number one priority for the government on the federal level, on the state level and on the local level is to protect communities,' Fong said. 'And if the local government and the governor of California won't do it, then someone has to, and the president is stepping up.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Schumer says 16 Republicans have ‘discomfort' with green tax credit rollbacks
Schumer says 16 Republicans have ‘discomfort' with green tax credit rollbacks

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Schumer says 16 Republicans have ‘discomfort' with green tax credit rollbacks

Democrats are working to convince some 16 of their Republican colleagues to oppose the GOP's policy bill because of its rollbacks to climate-friendly tax credits, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday. 'We have a group … of seven or eight Democrats who are talking to their Republican colleagues … and we're getting some vibes that people realize this bill went too far, and we're hoping they can all go together to John Thune and to Crapo and say, 'Change it. We can't be for it the way it is,'' Schumer told reporters Wednesday, referring to Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho). 'We have a list of 16 Republican senators who have shown some discomfort with this, and that's the main group we're focused on,' he added. The version of the 'big, beautiful bill' passed by House Republicans makes major cuts to tax credits for climate-friendly energy sources, making it so that any project that is not already under construction within 60 days of the law's enactment is ineligible for the tax credits. This provision, among others, is expected to bar many projects from eligibility and could ultimately lead to less low-carbon energy development. At least some Republicans have publicly expressed skepticism of a rapid end to the credits, with Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Thom Tillis (N.C.), John Curtis (Utah) and Jerry Moran (Kan.) warning against a full repeal. However, House Republicans who have championed the cuts are pushing for them to stay in their current form, with members of the Freedom Caucus board recently saying it will 'not accept' changes that water down the cuts. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store