WASHINGTON – Richard Glossip, an inmate on death row in Oklahoma, is set to have his request for a new trial reviewed by the Supreme Court on Wednesday. He has faced nine execution dates and has had three ‘last meals.’

Glossip has previously appealed to the Supreme Court, notably in 2015 when he challenged the state’s lethal injection methods.

This time, however, he and the state of Oklahoma are both advocating for his cause.

The state acknowledges that new evidence uncovered from recent inquiries indicates that Glossip, 61, did not receive a fair trial regarding the 1997 murder of his employer at an Oklahoma City motel. The principal witness in the case was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was found to have lied during testimony, according to the prosecution.

Nonetheless, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals declared last year that the state attorney general’s request to vacate Glossip’s conviction was not a valid reason to stop the execution.

Now, in a rare turn of events, Oklahoma – the state with the country’s highest execution rate per capita – is joining with Glossip in urging the Supreme Court to reverse that ruling and mandate a new trial. Given this unusual partnership, the court has appointed an attorney to represent the opposing viewpoint.

“This is a very unusual scenario,” stated Robin Maher, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, which stands against capital punishment.

However, advocates stress that what is unfortunately common is the kind of prosecutorial misconduct acknowledged in Glossip’s case – specifically, the failure to disclose evidence that could undermine the prosecution and permitting false testimony regarding that evidence, which is a leading factor in wrongful convictions.

Research into exonerations shows that in 44% of reviewed cases, prosecutors withheld critical evidence, with concealed evidence contributing to 61% of wrongful murder convictions, as noted by the Innocence Project in a submission to the Supreme Court.

Family of the victim demands swift action

The relatives of Barry Van Treese, the man Glossip was convicted of aiding in the murder of in 1997, maintain that there were no prosecutorial errors in this instance.

“Today – 10,047 days later – the Van Treese family is eager to see Oklahoma implement the sentence on Glossip without any further delay,” their attorney stated in a court filing.

Van Treese, who owned a Best Budget Inn in Oklahoma City, was brutally killed using a baseball bat in one of the motel’s rooms.

Justin Sneed, the motel’s maintenance worker, admitted to committing the murder but claimed that Glossip coerced him, promising $10,000 in return. Sneed’s testimony against Glossip enabled him to avoid receiving the death penalty.

Glossip was initially convicted and sentenced to death in 1998. Three years later, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals determined that he was entitled to a new trial due to inadequate defense representation.

A subsequent jury declared Glossip guilty again in 2004.

First ‘last meal’ happened in 2015

Glossip’s first ‘last meal’ was served in January 2015 before the Supreme Court put a temporary halt to the execution to review his challenge against Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocols.

The court ruled against Glossip, who has come alarmingly close to execution – twice within hours of it occurring – until Oklahoma enforced a six-year pause on capital punishment. This moratorium arose after concerns were raised by the attorney general about the state’s readiness to carry out executions correctly, particularly after the wrong drug was delivered for Glossip’s planned lethal injection.

This period of delay permitted Glossip’s attorney, Don Knight, to pursue further inquiries and ultimately access information that the state had not previously disclosed to the defense.

“It has taken this long to acquire that evidence,” Knight commented regarding the numerous boxes of documents he received over the last two years.

Evidence of serious prosecutorial misconduct revealed

Among the documents handed over last year was a page featuring handwritten notes from the prosecutor concerning a pre-trial interview with Sneed.

Notes reveal that Sneed – the “essential witness against Glossip” – gave false testimony regarding his diagnosis of bipolar disorder. The prosecution allegedly asked Sneed misleading questions about his lithium treatment and did not correct his testimony, according to the state.

In response to this “disturbing evidence of serious prosecutorial misconduct,” the attorney general has initiated an external investigation and “made the challenging but necessary choice to admit error,” as noted by Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general during George W. Bush’s presidency, who is representing Oklahoma in the Supreme Court filing.

Seth Waxman, who served as solicitor general during Clinton’s administration, is representing Glossip at the Supreme Court. He asserts that Glossip was not given a fair opportunity to demonstrate to the jury that Sneed’s recollection was questionable and that he was prepared to commit perjury.

Oklahoma is not claiming Glossip’s innocence but emphasizes that “the death penalty should only apply to defendants found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt after a fair trial devoid of prosecutorial misconduct.”

The American Civil Liberties Union informed the court that while it’s challenging to gauge how frequently prosecutors hide evidence, “the number of known infractions in Oklahoma is alarming.”

`Possible Political Motivations’

Members of the Van Treese family argue that the prosecutor’s notes are being misinterpreted and assert that no evidence was hidden, implying there are “possible political motives” behind Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond’s confession of error.

“It wouldn’t be surprising to find differing perspectives on a case among elected officials,” Paul Cassell, the lawyer for the family, stated in court. “However, if officials can simply admit `error’ because they disagree with the case’s outcome, it undermines trust in the criminal justice system.”

Clement asserted that any notion of Oklahoma aligning with death-penalty opponents is “detached from reality.” He pointed out that the state executed four individuals just last year, all with Drummond’s backing.

“Public trust in the death penalty necessitates that these cases meet the utmost standards of reliability,” Drummond remarked last year after the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board did not recommend clemency for Glossip. “While the State hasn’t challenged the integrity of past death penalty cases, the Glossip conviction is distinctly different. I believe it would be a grave injustice to execute someone whose trial was fraught with numerous errors.”

Drummond began investigating this case, which he termed “clouded by controversy,” shortly after he assumed office in 2023.

Knight, Glossip’s attorney, praised the courage of the top law enforcement official in a state where the politics heavily favor the death penalty for advocating that Glossip did not receive a fair trial.

“For an attorney general in Oklahoma to advocate for that right means he’s advocating for all of us and saying, `Not on my watch,’” Knight stated. “He deserves commendation for that.”