The U.S. Supreme Court has granted Richard Glossip, an Oklahoma death row inmate, a new trial. This decision marks a significant development in his long-standing fight to prove his innocence. Glossip was originally convicted in 1998 for allegedly orchestrating a murder carried out by Justin Sneed, the prosecution's main witness. Despite maintaining his innocence and facing inconsistent testimony from Sneed during retrials, Glossip was convicted again.
An independent investigation later revealed prosecutorial misconduct, including the destruction of key evidence and withholding of potentially exculpatory information. These findings cast doubt on Sneed's testimony and led to Glossip seeking post-conviction relief. The Supreme Court had previously stayed his execution while agreeing to review the case.
Brian Stull, deputy director of the ACLU’s Capital Punishment Project, commented on the ruling: “Richard Glossip has been fighting for two decades to prove his innocence; today the Supreme Court assured that he will finally have his day in court.” He further stated that this case highlights flaws within the death penalty system and underscores issues related to false testimony and withheld evidence.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) played a role in this case by filing an amicus brief. The brief argued that prosecutors violated Glossip’s due process rights by not disclosing exculpatory evidence and relying on false testimony. It also pointed out Oklahoma's history of similar violations.
“Time after time, Oklahoma prosecutors have violated these precedents, despite repeated notice that their actions were not in compliance with the U.S. Constitution,” reads part of the brief submitted by the ACLU.
This case forms part of the ACLU's Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket and serves as a reminder of potential errors within capital punishment proceedings.
