The U.S. Supreme Court has granted a new trial for an Oklahoma man sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of his boss, after an investigation found the prosecution withheld boxes full of evidence and allowed false testimony at his trial.
In a 6-2 decision in Glossip v. Oklahoma, the court reaffirmed a 1959 ruling that the prosecution has a “constitutional obligation to correct false testimony.” Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that a defendant is entitled to a new trial if it’s possible that the jury’s decision might have been swayed by the false testimony.
Richard Glossip was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for paying Justin Sneed to kill Barry Van Treese, who owned the motel where both Glossip and Sneed worked. Glossip denied being involved in murder, which Sneed confessed to committing.
Sneed later was prescribed lithium while in jail due to a history of mental illness and drug use that made him prone to violent outbursts. At trial, however, prosecutors allowed Sneed to testify that he had never seen a psychiatrist and did not know why he was prescribed lithium.
Glossip maintained his innocence after his conviction. An outside firm hired by a group of 62 Oklahoma legislators reported “grave doubt as to the integrity of Glossip’s murder conviction and death sentence.” Investigators found the prosecution had intentionally destroyed key physical crime scene evidence and had inaccurately portrayed Sneed as a meek and nonviolent person at trial. After this independent investigation, the state discovered the previously undisclosed boxes of evidence.
As a result of these post-trial discoveries of multiple prosecutorial errors, the Oklahoma attorney general supported Glossip’s motion for post-conviction relief and asked the case to be sent back to the district court. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the state’s highest court, denied the request, ruling that the defense was aware or should have been aware of Sneed’s lithium use and that the prosecution “could not have knowingly concealed something the defense already knew.”
The Supreme Court disagreed, reasoning that while the defense knew Sneed had taken lithium, he falsely testified that he had never seen a psychiatrist and did not know why he was prescribed the drug. The court ruled that the Constitution’s due process clause imposes “the responsibility and duty to correct” false testimony on “representatives of the State,” not on defense counsel.
Several Oklahoma legislators involved in the independent investigation into Glossip’s case filed an amicus brief. The legislators argued that although they support the death penalty, it should be carried out “subject to the strict constitutional and other legal protections that apply to all criminal defendants, especially those against whom the State seeks to impose the most severe and final punishment—death.” They argued that executing Glossip given the plethora of evidence revealed from the independent investigation would be an unjust result and would harm the criminal justice system.
Ten states and Washington, D.C., also filed as amici in support of neither party. They argue that the Oklahoma attorney general’s rare confession of error should be accorded great weight, and “that weight should be heaviest when the error confessed turns on a fact-intensive, case-specific analysis.”
Sotomayor was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Amy Coney-Barrett concurred and dissented in part. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the decision.
Susan Frederick is NCSL’s senior federal affairs counsel.