(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered that an Oklahoma man convicted of murder, Richard Glossip — who has been scheduled for execution nine times and served his “last meal” three times — must now receive a new trial because errors committed by prosecutors violated his constitutional rights.
The 5-3 decision marks an extraordinary turn in a case that has seen decades of failed appeals, including a prior unsuccessful bid before the Supreme Court in which Glossip challenged the constitutionality of lethal injection as cruel and unusual punishment.
“We conclude that the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her majority opinion, invoking the 14th Amendment’s right to due process. “We reverse the judgement below and remand the case for a new trial.”
Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Sotomayor. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett dissented. Justice Neil Gorsuch recused from the case because of prior involvement as an appellate judge.
Glossip was convicted by an Oklahoma jury for involvement in the 1997 murder of his former boss, motel owner Barry Van Treese, only by testimony from the confessed killer, Justin Sneed, who later recanted the claim that he was paid by Glossip to perform the killing. He has maintained his innocence. There was no physical evidence.
Sneed — who received a life sentence in exchange for testifying against Glossip — had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and been taking psychiatric medication, but denied it during trial — facts uncorrected by prosecutors who knew the truth.
“Had the prosecution corrected Sneed on the stand, his credibility plainly would have suffered,” Sotomayor wrote. “That correction would have revealed to the jury not just that Sneed was untrustworthy … but also that Sneed was willing to lie to them under oath. Such a revelation would be significant in any case, and was especially so here where Sneed was already nobody’s idea of a strong witness.”
The state’s Republican attorney general, Gentner Drummond, who is a death penalty advocate, came out strongly against execution after reviewing the trial record.
“The death penalty doesn’t turn on, you know, ideology or politics,” Drummond told ABC News last year. “It should turn on the rule of law. This has been a wildly unpopular position for me to take, but it’s the right thing to do.”
Drummond has said he does not believe Glossip is innocent but that a new trial is imperative.
“We are thankful that a clear majority of the Court supports long-standing precedent that prosecutors cannot hide critical evidence from defense lawyers and cannot stand by while their witnesses knowingly lie to the jury. Today was a victory for justice and fairness in our judicial system,” said Glossip’s attorney Don Knight in a statement. “Rich Glossip, who has maintained his innocence for 27 years, will now be given the chance to have the fair trial that he has always been denied.”
The Van Treese family had asked the Supreme Court to uphold Glossip’s conviction.
Justice Thomas, in a written dissent, said the high court had no authority to override Oklahoma state court’s, which had refused to give Glossip a new trial.
“The Court stretches the law at every turn to rule in his favor,” Thomas wrote. “It finds a due process violation based on patently immaterial testimony about a witness’s medical condition. And, for the remedy, it orders a new trial in violation of black-letter law on this Court’s power to review state-court judgments.”
Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
