Oklahoma Attorney General Backs Richard Glossip’s Bid for a New Trial

Richard Glossip’s case has garnered national attention due to the unusual circumstances surrounding his death row experience, including multiple stays of execution and three last meals. Convicted in 1998 and again in a 2004 retrial for orchestrating the 1997 murder-for-hire of his boss, motel owner Barry Van Treese, Glossip has long maintained his innocence. The key witness against him, Justin Sneed, admitted to killing Van Treese but claimed Glossip had promised him $10,000 for the crime. Sneed received a life sentence in exchange for his testimony, which has since been called into question.

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a Republican, has recently emerged as an advocate for vacating Glossip’s conviction, citing serious concerns over prosecutorial misconduct. Drummond contends that prosecutors withheld evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland and knowingly allowed false testimony in violation of Napue v. Illinois. Specifically, he points to the fact that prosecutors hid information about Sneed’s psychiatric condition and his reasons for taking the mood-stabilizing drug lithium. Drummond also highlighted the destruction of crucial evidence, including motel receipts and a shower curtain, which could have been vital in proving Glossip’s innocence.

Despite Drummond’s stance, he does not claim Glossip is innocent but asserts that he did not receive a fair trial. The case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, with Glossip’s lawyers seeking a new trial based on the alleged misconduct. Former Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater, however, remains convinced of Glossip’s guilt and has urged against clemency, despite the case being prosecuted by his predecessors.

The outcome of Glossip’s legal battle could have broader implications for how the death penalty is administered in Oklahoma, particularly concerning issues of prosecutorial fairness and the reliability of key witnesses.

Leave a Comment