WASHINGTON – In an unexpected move, the state of Oklahoma, known for its high execution rates, has approached the Supreme Court, seeking a new trial for a death row inmate who maintains his innocence.

In a rare twist, both the defendant and the prosecution united in their argument, asserting that Richard Glossip should receive a fresh trial.

“I find myself in a unique situation,” Paul Clement, the former U.S. solicitor general representing Oklahoma, stated before the court.

While Glossip may not be a typical case of wrongful conviction, Clement emphasized that due to false testimony from the state’s essential witness, this conviction cannot be upheld.

Glossip, aged 61, was convicted and sentenced to death—twice—for the 1997 homicide of his employer, Barry Van Treese, at a budget motel in Oklahoma City.

The first conviction was overturned by an Oklahoma court due to inadequate legal representation.

His 2004 conviction heavily relied on the testimony of Justin Sneed, the motel’s maintenance worker. Sneed admitted to the murder of Van Treese but claimed that Glossip coerced him. Sneed’s testimony allowed him to escape a death penalty, while Glossip was condemned.

Subsequent independent reviews, first initiated by state legislators and later by Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, concluded that prosecutors may have suppressed evidence that could have cleared Glossip.

The attorney general noted that evidence relating to Sneed’s mental health was concealed from the defense, and Sneed was allowed to give misleading testimony about his psychiatric treatment and lithium usage.

Chief Justice John Roberts inquired how significant it would have been for the jury to know Sneed sought mental health care, especially since they were aware he was on lithium.

Seth Waxman, representing Glossip, argued that awareness of Sneed’s willingness to lie under oath could have greatly influenced the jury’s decision.

Conversely, Christopher Michel, the attorney designated by the Supreme Court to present the opposing viewpoint, indicated that the defense avoided probing Sneed’s mental health, fearing it could inadvertently help the prosecution depict Sneed as susceptible to manipulation.

Justice Elena Kagan responded firmly, stating, “A lie remains a lie. The primary concern for the jury is whether they can trust the witness’s statements.”

There are notes from a pre-trial interview with Sneed, allegedly written by the prosecutor, which the defense and the attorney general argue indicates the prosecution knew Sneed was not truthful.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett observed that the notes could be interpreted in several ways.

Meanwhile, Justice Clarence Thomas expressed confusion, stating he struggled to grasp their significance and repeatedly questioned whether the prosecutors had a fair opportunity to defend themselves throughout the independent inquiries.

“What should we make of their claim that they were excluded from the process?” he queried.

Clement countered this assertion and argued that the essence of the matter is Glossip’s trial, which was fundamentally compromised by Sneed’s dishonest testimony.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson proposed that the court could refer the case back to Oklahoma for further examination of the prosecution’s notes and other contested details.

Clement acknowledged that Oklahoma would be open to this suggestion but reiterated that the evidence strongly indicates Glossip’s rights were violated.

“The attorney general is keen on uncovering the truth,” Clement noted. “However, he must also assess whether the prosecutors encouraged or overlooked perjured testimony.”

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals denied the attorney general’s request to overturn Glossip’s conviction last year.

Glossip, who has faced nine execution dates, saw his latest execution postponed by the Supreme Court while they evaluate his case.

A decision is anticipated by the end of June.