The case of Richard Glossip, which is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, represents a rare and dramatic legal battle where both the defense and the state of Oklahoma, which had previously sought his execution, are now asking for his 1998 conviction to be overturned.
Glossip has been on death row for 27 years and faced nine execution dates, narrowly avoiding death multiple times.
His conviction stems from a 1997 murder-for-hire scheme, where Glossip was implicated in the killing of his boss, Barry Van Treese, based on the testimony of the actual killer, Justin Sneed.
Sneed had claimed Glossip paid him to commit the crime but later recanted his testimony. There is no physical evidence linking Glossip to the murder.
The Supreme Court will weigh significant issues in the case, including whether Glossip’s right to a fair trial was violated due to prosecutorial misconduct—such as withholding key evidence and allowing false testimony. Sneed’s mental health condition and psychiatric medication, known but unaddressed during the trial, raise further questions about the integrity of the case.
The Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a Republican, has taken the unusual step of agreeing that Glossip’s trial was deeply flawed and should be reconsidered.
However, the state’s courts have resisted overturning the conviction, citing legal barriers. As a result, the Supreme Court had to appoint a separate attorney to argue in defense of Glossip’s conviction.
The Van Treese family remains hopeful that the conviction will stand, highlighting the long wait for justice. The Court’s decision will explore profound questions regarding judicial finality, state law primacy, and the meaning of justice when both sides now agree that the execution should not proceed.
The ruling, expected in early 2025, could either give Glossip a new trial or send him back to death row.