WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday will weigh whether or not inmate Richard Glossip’s homicide conviction ought to be thrown out — an uncommon demise penalty case by which the legal professional basic of Oklahoma has sided with a defendant.
Glossip, who’s now 61, was convicted of arranging for the homicide in 1997 of his boss on the Oklahoma City motel the place they labored.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a Republican, made the uncommon choice to again Glossip’s attraction following an investigation into the case. The state has stopped wanting agreeing with Glossip’s declare that he’s harmless.
If Glossip wins, the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority that typically backs the demise penalty, would order that his conviction be thrown out and the case despatched again to a decrease courtroom for a brand new trial.
The Supreme Court beforehand signaled an curiosity in Glossip’s case by stepping in final 12 months to forestall him from being executed. The courtroom additionally blocked Glossip’s execution in 2015 in separate litigation over the state’s deadly injection process.
Questions about Glossip’s prosecution relaxation totally on considerations about key testimony offered by Justin Sneed, who carried out the 1997 homicide. Sneed, who pleaded responsible and averted a demise sentence, testified that Glossip had employed him to kill motel proprietor Barry Van Treese.
But it has since emerged that prosecutors had withheld details about Sneed and that he had given false testimony at trial.
“The newly disclosed proof confirms that the state knew Sneed’s testimony was false and did nothing to right it,” Glossip’s attorneys wrote in courtroom papers.
The impartial investigation ordered by Drummond discovered amongst different issues that prosecutors knew however didn’t disclose at Glossip’s second trial in 2004 that Sneed had been identified with bipolar dysfunction and prescribed lithium after his arrest.
Sneed additionally falsely testified that he had by no means seen a psychiatrist.
Drummond concluded that as Glossip’s conviction rested considerably on Sneed’s credibility, it shouldn’t be sustained.
“The centrality of Sneed’s testimony to the homicide charged can’t be overstated,” Drummond’s attorneys mentioned in courtroom papers.
Despite Drummond’s findings, an Oklahoma appeals courtroom upheld the demise sentence final 12 months and the state’s pardon and parole board voted in opposition to granting Glossip clemency.
Eight states together with Texas and Utah have urged the Supreme Court to uphold the Oklahoma courtroom ruling. Utah, joined by six different states, filed a quick arguing that the Supreme Court had no enterprise intervening within the case, which was targeted on Oklahoma state legislation.
Texas filed a separate transient saying that there was no motive for the Oklahoma courtroom to rule in favor of an inmate simply because the state requested it to.
Family members of Van Treese additionally urged the courtroom to uphold the conviction, saying that the case was a “cautionary story” of the potential risks of courts relying an excessive amount of on a state official’s confession of error.
Justice Neil Gorsuch isn’t anticipated to take part within the case having beforehand recused himself when the courtroom agreed to take it up. The courtroom has not given a motive nevertheless it probably pertains to his earlier position as a choose on the tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears instances from Oklahoma. If the courtroom is split 4-4, as is feasible, then the state courtroom ruling in opposition to Glossip would stay in place.