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.
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
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Arkansas Supreme Court releases proposed rule for artificial intelligence
The Arkansas Supreme Court building in Little Rock. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate) The use of artificial intelligence in legal documents could violate Arkansas law or court rules, according to a proposed administrative order issued by the state Supreme Court last week. Specifically, the proposed order addresses the use of confidential court data with generative artificial intelligence. AI models retain data inputted by users of AI products, such as ChatGPT, in order to continue training the large language models that exploded into public use only a few years ago, the order notes. 'Anyone who either intentionally or inadvertantly [sic] discloses confidential or sealed information related to a client or case [to a generative AI model] may be violating established rules,' the proposed order reads, specifically citing Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order Number 19, the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct and the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct. Additionally, the proposed order prohibits anyone with internal access to the state's court system, CourtConnect, from 'intentionally exposing our state courts' internal data to a GAI.' The proposed order provides an exemption to this prohibition if approval is granted by the Supreme Court's Automation Committee to engage in 'a research and analysis project related to the use of generative AI tools and general AI for the benefit of our courts.' The proposed order does not appear to address questions of broader use of AI by attorneys within the state court system. Judges in courtrooms across the country in recent months have expressed frustration with attorneys who have filed briefs and other documents bearing citations to nonexistent or irrelevant cases as a result of so-called 'AI hallucinations,' leading to sanctions in some cases. As reported by the Alabama Reflector, for example, lawyers who were being paid millions by the Alabama Department of Corrections to defend it against lawsuits filed by prisoners in the state system were called out by an inmate's attorneys for making up legal citations 'out of whole cloth' in a lawsuit where their client alleged being stabbed repeatedly while in restraints. The federal judge presiding over the case said that the incident showed that sanctions levied by other courts had proven 'insufficient' to deter lawyers from filing documents with improper or made up citations created by AI. 'That causes me to consider a fuller range of sanctions,' Judge Anna M. Manasco said. The Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Automation created a subcommittee to 'study the use of AI in the courts.' The introduction to the proposed order notes that as the committee continues its work, it will make recommendations. The comment period for the proposed administrative order ends on Aug. 1. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Denver Case Highlights the Potentially Deadly Hazards of Police Raids Based on Secondhand Information
On a Friday night in March 2023, Sean Horan called 911 to report that Michael Mendenhall, who runs a staffing agency out of a converted townhouse on Blake Street in Denver, had threatened him with a baseball bat. Based on nothing more than Horan's one-sided account of a confrontation at Mendenhall's townhouse, police officers arrested Mendenhall for felony menacing. To support that charge, Detective Nicholas Rocco-McKeel obtained a search warrant by repeating what another officer told him Horan had said. During the ensuing search of the townhouse, police seized the baseball bat as evidence. Prosecutors dropped the case against Mendenhall less than a week later, and it is not hard to see why: Horan's account of what had happened was inconsistent and improbable. But police never returned the bat, which was a valuable collector's item because it was signed by players at the 2021 Major League Baseball All-Star Game in Denver. That purloined bat is at the center of a case that aims to overturn a controversial 1960 Supreme Court precedent allowing home searches based on hearsay. Mendenhall argues that the warrant authorizing the search of his property was invalid under the Fourth Amendment because it relied on thirdhand information rather than Rocco-McKeel's personal knowledge. "The Fourth Amendment must be enforced in its entirety," says Anya Bidwell, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which represents Mendenhall. Although "the Fourth Amendment bans reliance on second-hand information," she says, "the courts have read that requirement out of the Constitution. We're fighting to bring back the original understanding of this very important protection." Issuing a warrant "is no trivial thing," a brief that Mendenhall recently filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit notes. "Warrants authorize armed government agents to seize persons or comb through their most private spaces. Warrants authorize the government to employ violence to accomplish these goals. There is hardly ever a situation in which the individual is more powerless before the State than when its agents arrive armed with a warrant." Although no one was injured in Mendenhall's case, briefs supporting his appeal note that the consequences of hearsay-based warrants can be lethal, as illustrated by the 2020 death of Breonna Taylor. The circumstances that led to the search of Mendenhall's townhouse suggest the hazards of allowing police invasions of private property based on secondhand information. Around 10 p.m. on March 10, 2023, according to Mendenhall's brief, he was "relaxing after work at the townhouse with a friend when he heard women screaming and a man yelling just outside his front door." Concerned for the women's safety, Mendenhall grabbed his commemorative bat and "opened the door to investigate." He saw "a strange and shabbily dressed man," later identified as Horan, sitting on the stoop of the townhouse with two dogs and "yelling at a group of women." When Mendenhall asked Horan to leave, the brief says, Horan "refused and threatened to call the police." He followed through on that threat after Mendenhall went back inside. When four police officers arrived at the townhouse around 11 p.m., Horan, who lived about 50 miles away, told them he was taking a walk when he stopped to rest on Mendenhall's stoop. Although Horan was carrying a gun, he said he had felt threatened by Mendenhall and wanted to press charges. "Rather than asking follow-up or clarifying questions," Mendenhall's brief says, "the officers went to Mr. Mendenhall's townhouse and arrested him as soon as he opened the door, securing him in handcuffs and taking him to a squad car across the street." The officers called Rocco-McKeel, telling him what Horan had said. Without talking to Mendenhall, the detective regurgitated that account in an affidavit that he submitted to Denver County Court Judge Renee A. Goble, who issued a search warrant at 12:34 a.m. on March 11. Horan never testified before Goble, submitted an affidavit, or otherwise swore to the facts underlying the allegations against Mendenhall. And Rocco-McKeel, who wrote the affidavit, "neither observed any of the relevant facts nor personally spoke to Mr. Horan," the 10th Circuit brief notes. He "merely repeated what another officer said Mr. Horan had said." All of that was fine under the Denver Police Department's operations manual, which says officers may "rely upon information received through an informant, rather than upon direct observation, to show probable cause" for a search warrant. It was also fine under Jones v. United States, a 1960 case in which the Supreme Court approved the search of an apartment based on an unnamed informant's report that the tenant was involved in drug dealing. That decision, the Institute for Justice argues, is inconsistent with the text and history of the Fourth Amendment, which says "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation." Until Jones, that requirement generally was understood to mean that warrants could be issued only based on the affiant's firsthand knowledge of the relevant facts, as opposed to the unsworn claims of another person who was never subjected to judicial scrutiny. That understanding, Mendenhall's brief argues, jibes with British and American common law, was reflected in a long series of court decisions, and "continued virtually without question for over 160 years." In Jones, however, the Supreme Court disregarded the Fourth Amendment's Oath or Affirmation Clause, focusing instead on what was required to show probable cause. That decision "addressed neither the constitutional text nor the overwhelming weight of authority," Mendenhall's brief says. "Under a proper interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, Denver's express policy of permitting warrants to be issued without oath or affirmation supporting probable cause is unconstitutional. But for Jones, Denver would be liable to Mr. Mendenhall for its unreasonable search and seizure of his property." In February, U.S. District Judge Philip Brimmer predictably concluded that Jones barred Mendenhall's civil rights lawsuit against the city and county of Denver. Mendenhall's lawyers acknowledge that the 10th Circuit likewise is bound by that precedent. Mendenhall "brought this case to overturn Jones and reestablish the vital role that the Oath or Affirmation Clause was intended to play in protecting the rights enshrined in our Constitution," the Institute for Justice says. "He concedes that this Court is bound by Jones and must affirm the district court's decision granting Denver's motion to dismiss. Mr. Mendenhall files this brief, however, both to preserve this issue for further review by the U.S. Supreme Court and in the hopes of persuading the members of this panel that they, too, should call on the Supreme Court to restore the constitutional protection that Jones improperly erased." In a brief supporting Mendenhall's appeal, five law professors argue that "the text and Founding-era understanding of the Fourth Amendment require that a warrant be supported by admissible witness testimony." They add that "cases decided shortly after ratification confirm that hearsay is not a proper basis for issuing a warrant." Two other briefs underline the hazards of hearsay-based warrants. The National Police Accountability Project and the Law Enforcement Action Partnership note that warrants based on secondhand information, typically from confidential sources who have incentives to lie or exaggerate, "routinely result in wrong house raids," which "present significant danger to residents of the home and officers executing the warrant," often resulting in "civilians and police being seriously injured or killed." That danger is starkly illustrated by the March 2020 raid that killed Breonna Taylor. Louisville, Kentucky, police broke into Taylor's apartment late at night based on a search warrant obtained by Detective Joshua Jaynes, who claimed a U.S. postal inspector had informed him that her ex-boyfriend, a suspected drug dealer named Jamarcus Glover, had been receiving packages at her address, which Jaynes suggested might contain drugs or drug money. It turned out that Jaynes never spoke directly with the postal inspector, who said there was nothing suspicious about the packages. But that revelation came too late for Taylor, who died in a hail of bullets after her new boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, fired at the invading officers, whom he mistook for violent criminals. Walker was initially charged with attempted murder of a police officer, but prosecutors dropped that case two months later, implicitly conceding that he had a strong self-defense claim. "No drugs, money, or contraband were found in Ms. Taylor's apartment during or after the raid," notes a brief that Walker submitted in support of Mendenhall's appeal. "Mr. Glover himself later confirmed that Ms. Taylor had no involvement in his drug trade, explaining that the only packages he ever had sent to her address contained clothes and shoes that we was afraid would be stolen if sent to the house where he stayed." Taylor's senseless death "reflects not only a catastrophic failure of the warrant process, but also a foreseeable consequence of Jones," Walker's brief argues. "By allowing magistrates to issue warrants based on hearsay, Jones removed the requirement that a declarant appear in court, swear to the truth of their statement, and be subjected to questioning, and replaced it with a framework that lends itself to fabrication." Thanks to Jones, "officers seeking a warrant but lacking probable cause—like Detective Jaynes—may now be motivated to enhance their own affidavits by inventing conversations with third-party declarants," the brief notes. "And, because Jones requires no oath or appearance from those declarants, the reviewing judge must rely entirely on the affiant's secondhand account of what a declarant allegedly said and why he/she should be believed. Not only does the magistrate have no opportunity to evaluate the declarant's demeanor, consistency, or basis of knowledge, but also, more fundamentally, the magistrate effectively has no way to verify whether the declarant even exists or ever even made the statements attributed to him/her. The result is a system in which wholly fabricated claims can serve as the basis for intrusions into our most private spaces." That brief was joined by Anjanette Young, another victim of a raid based on secondhand information. On a Thursday evening in February 2019, a dozen Chicago police officers, acting on a tip from a confidential informant, burst into Young's apartment. Young, who was changing out of her work clothes, was caught "completely naked and exposed." She was handcuffed in that state, feeling utterly humiliated, for 10 minutes while the officers vainly searched her apartment for an armed felon. "It quickly became apparent that the information they had received from the informant was bad," the brief says. "They were at the wrong apartment." Young "should never have had to endure the invasive and degrading raid that was conducted on her home," the brief adds. "When presented with a warrant application that relied entirely on an unverified tip from an informant, the magistrate judge who issued the warrant had a constitutional obligation to probe the basis for the officer affiant's assertions—e.g., by asking whether the informant's claims were corroborated and what, if anything, law enforcement had done to verify them. While it is unclear whether the magistrate ever spoke with the informant, the fact that he issued the warrant at all—given the apparent lack of any attempt by officers to verify the informant's tip—is highly suggestive of a lack of any meaningful consideration." Jones encourages such lax oversight, the brief argues: "The magistrate judge is no longer able to meaningfully perform [his] constitutional role. Denied access to the declarant, the judge cannot assess his/her credibility firsthand. Instead, the affiant alone decides which facts to include and which to withhold, effectively filtering the evidence and shielding the judge from any information that might undermine the affiant's narrative….The Fourth Amendment demands more than this system of magisterial rubber-stamping that Jones has engendered." The post Denver Case Highlights the Potentially Deadly Hazards of Police Raids Based on Secondhand Information appeared first on
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Criminal Case Against Kilmar Abrego Garcia Is Highly Suspect
On Friday, the Trump administration finally complied with multiple court orders to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the United States, securing his release from a prison in El Salvador. The catch: Federal officials promptly placed Abrego Garcia in criminal custody, unveiling an indictment alleging that he unlawfully smuggled migrants across the U.S. He will now be detained in Tennessee—far from his home and family in Maryland—awaiting trial on these charges. The indictment is, quite obviously, an effort by the White House to save face after losing its legal battle to keep Abrego Garcia imprisoned overseas. It has been nearly three months since the government deported him, due to its own 'administrative error,' in clear violation of a court order. And it has been almost two months since the Supreme Court ordered the government to 'facilitate' his return from the Salvadoran prison where he has been held. Although Abrego Garcia lacks permanent legal status in the U.S., he was protected against removal to his home country of El Salvador and denied due process during his expulsion, along with hundreds of other migrants to the notorious CECOT prison complex. (After his case garnered international attention, he was moved by Salvadoran authorities to a different prison.) Now, after repeatedly suggesting that it would defy SCOTUS, the Trump administration has finally complied, begrudgingly, by bringing Abrego Garcia back to the United States to face criminal prosecution. The charges against him may be valid. They may be exaggerated. Or they may be fabricated. It is far too soon to tell, and an indictment—which is notoriously easy to obtain—sheds little light on the matter. But already, there are at least five reasons to be skeptical that the government is acting in good faith and telling the truth about Abrego Garcia. First, it is unclear why the Trump administration waited so long to bring this indictment if the facts are as damning and undeniable as it claims. The White House has been desperately searching for ways to smear Abrego Garcia since it first deported him in March. It incessantly alleged that he was a known gang member without proffering any credible evidence; the White House's alleged 'proof' rested on the word of a disgraced former cop who later pleaded guilty to providing confidential information to a sex worker he had hired. The administration also accused Abrego Garcia of human trafficking because, in late 2022, he was pulled over while driving in a car with eight other Hispanic men. That episode now forms the basis of his indictment. But if that's true, why did federal prosecutors wait two and a half years to charge him? Second, and relatedly, the federal government took a very different view of the 2022 incident when it occurred. There was no overt evidence that Abrego Garcia was smuggling immigrants across the country, as prosecutors now claim. At the time, any inference of human trafficking rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and racial profiling. (A known construction worker, Abrego Garcia reported that he and his passengers were on their way to a construction site.) After pulling him over, Tennessee police reported Abrego Garcia and his passengers to federal law enforcement—but federal officers directed local police to let them continue along their way. The federal government did not see fit to even detain or investigate him then. Now it has brought felony charges against him. What changed—other than the president and his suddenly urgent desire to find a justification for his blatantly unlawful rendition program? Third, as Just Security's Ryan Goodman has noted, the government's account of the 2022 traffic stop has shifted as well. In their indictment and motion for pretrial detention, prosecutors claim that Abrego Garcia lied to officers during the encounter, concealing that he was driving his passengers up from Texas. That allegation lies at the heart of the case: It ostensibly confirms that Abrego Garcia was dishonest about his actions and intentions, giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that he was covering up criminal activity. The allegation, though, appears to be false. According to a 2022 Department of Homeland Security referral report, he was driving his passengers from Texas to Maryland for construction work. This report thus contradicts the government's new assertion that Abrego Garcia deceptively omitted the fact that his journey began in the Lone Star State. Fourth, prosecutors have now brought forth a raft of disturbing allegations about Abrego Garcia's behavior, accusing him of regularly smuggling guns, transporting migrants for cash, and attempting to solicit child pornography. But it has provided literally no supporting evidence for its claims about child pornography, or even the scantest details about this eye-popping accusation. Meanwhile, its allegations about human smuggling rest entirely on Abrego Garcia's alleged co-conspirators, who have since been imprisoned or deported. This kind of evidence is notoriously unreliable, in part because the government frequently offers deals—including payments, sentence reductions, or early release—to informants in exchange for inculpatory evidence. This practice incentivizes hyperbolic or made-up claims and disproportionately leads to wrongful conviction. Indeed, the Supreme Court recently took the rare step of overturning a capital conviction that rested on the dubious testimony of the defendant's alleged co-conspirator. The Trump administration's accusations should therefore be regarded with healthy suspicion. Finally, ABC News has reported that Ben Schrader, a high-ranking federal prosecutor in Tennessee, has resigned over his office's conduct in this case, fearing that Abrego Garcia was targeted for political reasons. Schrader's unusual move is a flashing red warning sign that something has gone terribly wrong in this case. There could be no clearer indication that the Trump administration is, indeed, persecuting Abrego Garcia as punishment for his efforts to fight his illegal deportation—a perverse attempt to ensure that, although he may have succeeded in returning to the U.S., his remaining time here will be spent behind bars. In 1940, shortly before his elevation to the Supreme Court, Robert Jackson issued a warning about the sweeping discretion of federal prosecutors. 'With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes,' Jackson explained, 'a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him.' This approach, Jackson warned, represents the 'greatest danger of abuse,' especially for those who happen to be 'unpopular' with the government. It is abundantly clear that in Abrego Garcia's case, the Trump administration started by 'picking the man,' then looking for the crime. That alone is cause for concern that this indictment represents a grievous abuse of the criminal justice system. The facts that come out at trial may or may not substantiate the charges. But at this point, the case bears so many hallmarks of a political prosecution that no one should assume that the government is speaking a word of truth.
