The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Richard Glossip, a man sentenced to death in extremely suspicious circumstances, must undergo a new trial. The case is Glosip v. Oklahoma.
There are 6-3 Republican majority courts Usually different Challenge your own conviction or attempt to avoid execution of prisoners. Impossible lattice The case heralds a breakthrough in this trend as Glossip brings unusually strong cases to the Supreme Court. Indeed, his case is strong enough that the Republican attorney general in Oklahoma is often appointed to defend Glosip’s beliefs, but argues Glosip’s trial was so flawed that it violated the Constitution.
There are five judges in total – Chief Justice John Roberts, plus Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kava Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson – voted for Grand Glossip for a new trial. Judge Amy Coney Barrett agreed that Glossip’s constitutional rights were violated, but she would have sent the case to the Oklahoma Court of Appeals. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito disagree (Judge Neil Gorsuch was withdrawn).
The convictions of Glosip by many powerful players in Oklahoma have raised serious suspicion, and the state has conducted two investigations that stipulate many of the flaws targeting Glosip. A law firm Reed Smith, who represents a team of dozens of state lawmakers, determines various errors, destroys evidence and police failures, “basically question the fairness of the lawsuit. and the ultimate reliability of the guilty verdict for Glossip in the murder case. ”
The second investigation commissioned by Gentner Drummond, state attorney general, identified “Glosip was deprived of a fair trial The state can be confident in the process and the outcome. ”
Despite the police investigation and prosecution magazine, there are many mistakes (I Summary of some of them), Most Opinions of Sotomayor lattice Focus on only one of them. Nearly two decades after Glossip’s conviction, the state revealed that a major witness had falsely testified at the trial that he had never met a psychiatrist. Despite awareness of the witness’s previous psychiatric treatment, the prosecutor never corrected the false testimony.
This violates the Supreme Court Naples v. Illinois (1959), prosecutors are usually prohibited from making false testimony, and prosecutors are usually required to correct the testimony when such testimony occurs.
It’s very fragile for grids
Justin Sneed, maintenance worker at the motel owned by Barry van Treese in 1997 Killed Van Terres with a baseball bat. Glossip was the manager of the motel at the time.
lattice Not completely innocent. According to his lawyer, Glosip said: “On the day of the murder, he spoke to the police again after he was detained the next day, admitting he had taken action after Van Treese’s murder , which helped Sneider after the fact. “Initially, the state used Glossip as an accessory after the fact to help cover up the murder and clear the murder. But the allegation later escalated into a murder case.
There are many reasons to doubt the escalating allegations. At Glossip’s trial, the state’s theory was that Glossip planned the murder and hired Sneed to do it. However, there is a lot of evidence that Police fell into acknowledging this theory. For example, Reed Smith’s report found that sneed was implicated in the murder itself [lead] detective [Robert] Bemo interjected his point that Sneed was not acting alone, that Sneed could help himself, Glossip was arrested, and Glossip blamed Sneed for murder. ”
Sneed testified against Glossip at the 2004 trial, the only direct evidence linking Glossip to the murder. The state supports Glossip’s call for a new trial, calling Sneed “Essential Witnesses. ”
But Sneider is also more flawed than witnesses prosecutors allow the jury to believe. During that trial, Sneed wrongly testified that he hadNever seen a psychiatrist or anything. “Although he was prescribed lithium, a drug used to treat certain mental illnesses, and he was jailed for the murder of Van Treese, Sneed suggested it was One mistake, he only asked Sudaf to treat the cold.
However, in 2023, the state handed over a document to Glossip’s attorney, which destroyed Sneed’s testimony and suggested prosecutors know that Sneed lied at Glossip’s murder trial. The file, Page of handwritten notes Chief Prosecutor Connie Smothermon is represented by a symbol, indicating that Smothermon knows Sneed is “lithium” and mentions “Dr. horn.”
The “Doctor Horn” is Dr. Larry Trombka, a prison psychiatrist, when Sneed was imprisoned in the facility. Trombka prescribed lithium to treat Sneed’s bipolar disorder. He later said Sneed’s mental illness could have caused him to experience a “manic event” which could have led him to “more paranoid or possibly violent” and Sneed’s condition “intensified by illegal drug use, such as methamphetamine. transparent
If Glossip’s lawyers had learned about Sneed’s diagnosis and treatment at the 2004 trial, they could have weakened Sneed’s testimony in several ways. First, Sneed’s fact proved his medical history, a fact that undermined his credibility and could have caused the jury to suspect the basic witness in the state.
Additionally, if defense attorneys know about Sneed’s mental health diagnosis, they might raise doubts about the state’s murder theory, instead arguing that Sneed committed the murder, which was spontaneously brought about by manic incidents and his drug use Behavior.
As Sotomayor explained in the court lattice Opinion, Naples It was very advantageous to decide that someone like Glosip, who was convicted based on false testimony that prosecutors could correct. Naples Call for throwing away faithAs long as false testimony may have an impact on the outcome of the trial. ‘”
Later Supreme Court ruling determined that “convictions obtained using perjury testimony must be shelved If there is any reasonable possibility that it may affect the jury’s verdictthey suggest that this rule can only be overcome if the prosecution “can “undoubtedly prove that the wrong of the complaint did not contribute to the judgment that was obtained”. ”
In other words, Sotomayor’s view follows only these established precedents to reach its logical conclusions. The reasonable possibility is that if the jury knows that Sneed’s testimony is wrong, the jury will not be accused. This was enough to grant him a new trial.
