Oklahoma prosecutors seek retrial of longtime death row inmate Richard Glossip after conviction tossed
Supreme CourtFacebookTweetLink
Follow
Oklahoma prosecutors will retry longtime death row inmate Richard Glossip a third time for his role in the 1997 killing of his former boss, Attorney General Gentner Drummond said Monday.
The decision comes after the US Supreme Court in February tossed Glossip's conviction and death sentence. The court determined the original prosecutors in the case allowed a key witness to give testimony they knew to be false, violating Glossip's constitutional right to a fair trial.
Glossip, who had long maintained his innocence, was twice convicted and sentenced to death for the killing of Oklahoma City motel owner Barry Van Treese in what prosecutors alleged was a murder-for-hire killing. Another man, Justin Sneed, admitted robbing Van Treese and beating him to death with a baseball bat, but testified that he did so after Glossip promised to pay him $10,000. Sneed was the state's key witness against Glossip and was sentenced to life in prison.
After the Supreme Court's decision, Drummond, acknowledged retrying the case more than 25 years later would be difficult. Drummond had taken the unusual step of asking the court to overturn Glossip's conviction, arguing that while he believed Glossip had a role in the killing, he did not believe he had received a fair trial.
'I do not believe Richard Glossip is innocent,' Drummond said after the high court's ruling. 'The mission of this office is to seek justice, not to defend the prosecution.'
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote for five of the high court's justices, said additional prosecutorial misconduct, including interfering with Sneed's testimony, destroying evidence and withholding witness statements, further undermined confidence in the verdict.
During his time on death row, courts in Oklahoma set nine different execution dates for Glossip, and he came so close to being put to death that he had three separate last meals. In 2015, he was being held in a cell next to Oklahoma's execution chamber, waiting to be strapped to a gurney and injected with drugs that would kill him.
But the scheduled time for his execution came and went. And behind the walls of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, prison officials were scrambling after learning one of the lethal drugs they received to carry out the procedure didn't match the execution protocols. The drug mix-up ultimately led to a nearly seven-year moratorium on executions in Oklahoma.
This is a developing story and will be updated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
23 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
California Labor Leader Charged With Felony After ICE Protest
California labor leader David Huerta has been charged with a federal felony, accused of interfering with law enforcement after joining a protest against immigration arrest operations in Los Angeles that set off days of unrest. Huerta leads the Service Employees International Union 's United Service Workers West, which represents more than 45,000 workers including janitors, security officers and airport staff. He is also president of SEIU's California chapter.
Newsweek
27 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Warns Supreme Court 'Fans the Flames'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a warning about the nation's highest court in her latest dissent over the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)'s access to Social Security systems. Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court's public information office email for comment. Why It Matters Jackson, the newest justice on the bench, warned that conservative justices are rushing to assist President Donald Trump's administration in the ruling handed down last week. Her warning comes as public trust in the Supreme Court remains low—the Pew Research Center found in August 2024 that a majority of American—51 percent—view the court unfavorably, while only 47 percent view the court favorably. Until 2022, Americans viewed the court favorably for decades. What to Know The court allowed DOGE, the task force aimed at cutting federal spending, to gain access to Social Security Administration (SSA) records last Friday. The relief came after U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander blocked the task force from gaining access to the systems over concerns about privacy implications. The court's three liberal justices dissented, with Jackson raising concerns about the court's ruling. When deciding questions like whether to grant or block an order issued by a lower court, the court assesses several factors including whether the applicant would face irreparable harm by allowing the stay to continue. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks during a confirmation hearing on March 22, 2022. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks during a confirmation hearing on March 22, 2022. MANDEL NGAN/POOL/AFP via Getty Images In her dissent, Justice Jackson wrote that the government did not substantiate its stay request "by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm" if the court allowed the block to stay in place awaiting a final verdict. Jackson said the only "urgency" underlying the application is the "mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes." "That sentiment has traditionally been insufficient to justify the kind of extraordinary intervention the Government seeks," Jackson wrote. "But, once again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them." Jackson is "clearly expressing her frustration with the use of the shadow docket to make public policy, something the Court's conservatives have been increasingly willing to do," Paul Collins, professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told Newsweek. "Public trust in the Court has fallen significantly in recent years, and Justice Jackson is likely linking the decline in public support for the Court to the growth in the use of the shadow docket," Collins said. Jackson issued a similar warning in the case Noem v. Doe in May. The case dealt with whether the administration could end a program giving residency to several countries facing domestic turmoil. She wrote the court "botched" its assessment and required "next to nothing from the Government with respect to irreparable harm." What People Are Saying Collins told Newsweek: "I think Justice Jackson's interpretation that the Court is rushing to side with the Trump Administration is a reasonable read of things. However, this probably has more to do with ideological alignment with the goals of the Trump Administration than with a particular affinity for President Trump. For instance, the Court's conservatives also sided with the Trump Administration in a case that would have required DOGE to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests." SSA Commissioner Bisignano to Newsweek via X last Friday: "The Supreme Court's ruling is a major victory for American taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries." Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts wrote on X on Friday: "MAJOR UPDATE: The Supreme Court just handed DOGE the keys to all the sensitive personal information Social Security has on file — your income, benefits, health records, and more. Why do Donald Trump and his cronies need access to millions of Americans' private data? It's absurd." What Happens Next Several pieces of Trump's agenda are facing legal battles, and the Supreme Court will continue playing a major role in determining whether his policies are constitutional or not moving forward. This has major implications for economic, immigration and social policy moving forward.
Associated Press
27 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Hearing held for judge accused of allowing immigrant to escape ICE custody
BOSTON (AP) — A hearing began Monday for a Massachusetts judge facing civil charges over allegations that she allowed an immigrant in her court to evade an immigration enforcement agent. The case stems from a 2018 incident in which Shelley Joseph, a district court judge, is accused of colluding with the immigrant's attorney and a court officer to allow him escape out a back door of the courthouse after a hearing on charges that included drug possession. An Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer had been waiting outside the courtroom to detain the defendant, Jose Medina-Perez. 'This case is about the integrity, impartiality and independence of the Massachusetts judiciary and the appearance of the integrity, impartiality and independence every judge must uphold,' Judith Fabricant, special counsel for the commission, told the hearing. A lawyer for Joseph, Elizabeth Mulvey, said the case had been distorted over time and that everyone had come to believe that her client 'let an illegal immigrant out of the door' with half of those people believing she should be jailed and the other half calling her a 'folk hero.' She argued Joseph had been vilified in the media and people were giving the impression that 'dozens of people' had seen Joseph 'get off the bench, escort the defendant to the door, give him a hug and wish him god speed.' 'Today in this court room and we are going to have opportunity to hear all the evidence,' Mulvey said. The case is similar to a Milwaukee judge accused in April of helping a man evade immigration authorities. The case has escalated a clash between the Trump administration and local authorities over the Republican president's sweeping immigration crackdown. Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan is accused of escorting the man and his lawyer out of her courtroom through the jury door after learning that immigration authorities were seeking his arrest. The man was taken into custody outside the courthouse after agents chased him on foot. In the Massachusetts case, federal obstruction of justice charges against Joseph were dropped in 2022 after she agreed to refer herself to a state agency that investigates allegations of misconduct by members of the bench. That agency, the Commission on Judicial Conduct, concluded last year that Joseph 'engaged in willful judicial misconduct that brought the judicial office into disrepute, as well as conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and unbecoming a judicial officer.' Denis McInerney, the hearing officer assigned to the case by the Supreme Judicial Court, said he will hear the evidence and then make a recommendation afterward based on whether he find Joseph violated the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct. The hearing is expected to last about a week. Much of the first day was dominated by the first witness, lawyer David Jellinek, who told the court he had been hired that day to represent Medina-Perez and had been granted immunity by federal prosecutors. Along with the drug charges, Medina-Perez was in court on a warrant out of Pennsylvania. After doing some research, Jellinek believed his client wasn't the same person wanted on the warrant. 'I was worried they were going to take a US citizen into custody,' he told the court. 'I was quite concerned for my client.' Jellinek failed to convince the ICE agent that they had the 'wrong guy' so he came up with a plan to release Medina-Perez out the back door. Fabricant argued that Joseph signal her approval for the plan - including an off the record conversation during a side bar — when she appeared sympathetic to Jellinek's desire for his client to avoid ICE. But another attorney for Joseph, Thomas Hoopes, suggest that Jellinek might have misinterpreted Joseph's comments when she raised the possibility that Medina-Perez could be detained, rather than be released. The prosecutor had agreed Medina-Perez wasn't the man wanted in Pennsylvania and moved to drop the fugitive from justice charge. She also wasn't seeking bail on the drug charges so he was free to go. Much will hinge on what was said during that off the record conversation, which lasted only 52 seconds and is being disputed by both sides.
