Richard Glossip: Legal experts weigh in on SCOTUS ruling

Glossip was convicted for orchestrating the 1997 murder of his boss, motel owner Barry Van Treese. His co-defendant, Justin Sneed, admitted to committing the actual murder but testified that Glossip hired him to do it. Glossip’s first conviction in 1998 was overturned by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals due to ineffective counsel. However, a second trial in 2004 again resulted in a guilty verdict and a death sentence.

Despite being close to execution multiple times, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked Glossip’s last scheduled execution in 2023. The justices later heard arguments in the case, leading to the recent ruling that Glossip had received an unfair trial and is entitled to a new one.

“What makes this interesting to a lot of people is the fact that Mr. Glossip, who has been on death row for decades, who has eaten his last meal three times, was not actually the person who killed the victim,” said legal expert Ed Blau.

Yet for more than two decades, Richard Glossip has sat on death row. However, the ruling by SCOTUS could change that.

“I think a lot of us in the legal community were surprised by the Supreme Court’s ruling,” Blau said.

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by revelations that prosecutors failed to disclose crucial evidence that might have proven Glossip’s innocence.

“In this particular case, there were boxes that were not turned over initially and were not turned over until long after the proceedings were finished and within those boxes, there was evidence found about the lack of candor from the prosecution to the defense or to the court,” Blau said. “Prosecutors have a duty to turn over all of the evidence they have that goes to the defendant's guilt or innocence or it goes to mitigation what lessons the effect of their actions.”

Additionally, it was found that prosecutors did not correct false testimony given by Sneed regarding his mental health.

“Justin Sneed, who actually committed the murder, testified several times and one of the issues was whether or not he had been seen by a psychiatrist, he had, but he testified that he had not. The issue is [that] prosecutors, it was their duty to bring that both to the defense's attention and to the court and or the jury's attention,” Blau said. “The Supreme Court found that there's at least a likelihood that the jury's verdict could be different had they heard the complete testimony.”

Legal experts note that while a new trial is possible, other options exist, including a plea deal, a plea for time served, or even the prosecution deciding to dismiss the case altogether.