Feb. 25 (UPI) — Prosecutors’ errors violated the constitutional rights of Richard Glossip when he was tried and convicted of murder, so he gets a new trial, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 decision.
“We conclude that the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her majority opinion. “We reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial.”
Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh joined Sotomayor in ruling in favor of a retrial for Glossip.
Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented while Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case due to his prior participation in the matter while an appellate judge.
Glossip, 62, was convicted of planning the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese, who was Glossip’s boss at an Oklahoma City motel.
Glossip had been on death row since 1998 and was denied several appeals until Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond recently agreed Glossip’s conviction was done improperly and asked the Supreme Court to rule in his favor.
The Supreme Court’s ruling throws out his conviction due to a key witness against Glossip having lied to the court and prosecutors withholding information about that witness in violation of Glossip’s 14th Amendment right to equal protection.
That witness was Justin Sneed, who is the person who murdered Van Treese and while giving testimony said Glossip had hired him to murder Van Treese.
Glossip in his conviction appeal argued Sneed lied to the court during Glossip’s second trial when Sneed said he never had seen a psychiatrist.
Prosecutors knew Sneed had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was prescribed lithium after he had been arrested, but prosecutors hid that information from the court, Glossip argued.
“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,” Sotomayor said in her majority opinion.
She said the prosecutors should have corrected the court record, but doing so would have undermined Sneed’s credibility and the case against Glossip, Sotomayor said.
“Hence, there is a reasonable likelihood that correcting Sneed’s testimony would have affected the judgment of the jury,” she said.
The ruling spares Glossip, 62, from execution, which had been scheduled nine times, including three during which he had been served his last meal.
Van Treese family attorney Paul Cassell told NBC News the family “remains confident” Glossip will be convicted of murder in a new trial.
He likely won’t face the death penalty, though.
Current Oklahoma County District Attorney Vicki Behenna has said Glossip’s case would not qualify for the death penalty.
Since being becoming the county’s district attorney in2023, Behenna has not sought the death penalty in any murder cases and has said the death penalty only should apply in the “most egregious cases.”
She told the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board in 2024the death penalty only should be allowed in cases that involve mass casualties or when the defendant has a history of violence that makes the person a threat to people and society while incarcerated, The Oklahoman reported.
