Activists opposing the death penalty rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on September 29, advocating for Richard Glossip, an Oklahoma inmate, to avoid execution.

Larry French/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Larry French/Getty Images

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction and death penalty for Richard Glossip, who has proclaimed his innocence for over 25 years. He came alarmingly close to execution, having eaten what was intended to be his “last meal” three separate times.

Glossip has undergone two trials and faced numerous appeals, including a failed attempt at the Supreme Court, where Justice Samuel Alito dismissed his claims as mere “stalling tactics.”

However, on Tuesday, three conservative justices teamed up with the three liberal justices to determine that Glossip had been deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutors on two occasions.

The six-justice majority expressed that the prosecution had violated Glossip’s rights by hiding evidence beneficial to his defense, including details about the primary witness’s drug use and mental health, and by inducing that witness to alter his testimony when it conflicted with earlier statements.

Glossip’s attorney, Don Knight, expressed immense relief on behalf of his client, stating that “He is utterly thrilled,” adding, “He now has a future free from death row.”

Prosecutors never charged Glossip with personally murdering motel owner Barry Van Trease. Instead, they claimed he hired handyman Justin Sneed to carry out the homicide, driven by either a desire to steal cash from Van Trease or to hide monetary misappropriation.

With no physical evidence linking Glossip to the crime, prosecutors initially offered to drop the death penalty if he testified against Sneed. However, when Glossip continued to assert his innocence, they transferred the plea offer to Sneed, who received a life sentence, while Glossip was convicted and faced a death sentence.

The case resembles a dramatic True Crime narrative. Notably, Glossip’s appeal to the Supreme Court was supported by Oklahoma’s Attorney General, Gentner Drummond—a conservative Republican and death penalty advocate. After two independent investigations revealed prosecutorial misconduct in both trials, Drummond made a rare move to formally call for a new trial.

However, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the Attorney General’s “confession of error,” maintaining that its decision was immune from federal court review.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court strongly opposed this, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing for the majority, stating that prosecutors failed their constitutional duty by not correcting false testimony given by Sneed, the only witness tying Glossip to the crime. The court underscored that failing to correct such erroneous testimony is a clear infringement of legal precedents established over 65 years ago.

Joining Sotomayor in the majority were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, along with Amy Coney Barrett for most of the ruling.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, accusing the majority of twisting “the law at every opportunity to grant relief to Glossip.” Justice Thomas asserted that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the case, and that Sneed’s false testimony did not significantly affect Glossip’s case outcome.

Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the proceedings, likely because the case originated in the appeals court where he previously served.

Significant credit for Tuesday’s ruling is given to Attorney General Drummond, noted defense attorney Knight. “He alone demonstrated the courage to state, ‘we will not continue pursuing the execution of this man.’ That’s remarkable political bravery, especially as he is currently campaigning for governor. He recognized that something was amiss and took action to correct it, achieving a just outcome.”