Richard Glossip case: latest

US Supreme Court rules that prosecutors violated ethical responsibilities

February 2025

The case of Richard Glossip in Oklahoma raises a number of interesting issues concerning the death penalty in the USA and in this case, the state of Oklahoma. In a 5-3 decision in Glossip v. Oklahoma issued on 25 February, the Supreme Court judges ruled that the prosecutors had ‘violated their duty to correct false testimony’. The prosecutors had also ‘suppressed material evidence concerning their star witness, Justin Sneed’ who actually committed the murder.

The case involved the murder in 1997 of Barry van Treese the owner of a motel. Sneed confessed to the killing and agreed a plea bargain claiming that Glossip had instructed him to carry out the murder. This saved him from execution. There are a number of factors which has made this a case attracting international attention.

There was very little corroboration evidence apart from the testimony of Sneed. Sneed’s mental state was not revealed to the defence (defense) team, nor was his untrustworthiness or that he had lied to the police. Glossip’s legal team has discovered that Sneed had discussed recanting his testimony before the original trial and since. This had not been revealed to them. Another not unusual factor is the doubtful quality of his defence counsel.

There is not doubt that Glossip has suffered much in the 27 years. He has had no less than nine execution dates and has eaten three ‘last meals’.

It is being said that this case will not have wider effects because so many elements are unusual. But it does highlight the problem of the death penalty. Had any one of the nine actually taken place, there would have been no chance of an appeal. If the criminal system has people willing to withhold evidence, then any chance of a fair trial is unlikely. It is also unwise to convict someone of the ultimate legal penalty without certainty which must mean at the very least, corroborative and trustworthy evidence. A defendant must also have first class attorneys to defend him. The testimony of an unreliable witness should be treated with great caution.

A new trial has been ordered.

Sources:

World Campaign Against the Death Penalty; BBC, The Hill.