Updated May 5, 2025 at 2:48 PM EDT
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out the conviction and death penalty for Richard Glossip, an Oklahoma man who has maintained his innocence for more than a quarter century, and who came so close to execution that he three times ate what was supposed to be his "last meal."
Glossip has been tried and convicted twice and lost multiple appeals, including one at the Supreme Court, where Justice Samuel Alito dismissed his claim as nothing but a "stalling tactic."
But on Tuesday, three of the court's conservatives joined the court's three liberals in concluding that prosecutors had denied Glossip a fair trial, not once, but twice.
The six-justice court majority said that prosecutors had violated Glossip's rights by concealing evidence helpful to the defense — including information about the drug use and mental status of the prosecution's star witness, and by persuading that witness to change his testimony when it conflicted with his prior testimony.
Glossip's lawyer, Don Knight, said his client is "beyond thrilled," noting that "He actually has a future that's not going to be on death row."
Prosecutors never contended that Glossip himself bludgeoned motel owner Barry Van Trease to death with a baseball bat. Rather, they ultimately settled on the theory that Glossip, who managed the motel, commissioned handyman Justin Sneed to murder Van Trease. The alleged motive being, alternately, to steal a wad of cash from the owner, or to conceal embezzlement of funds.
There was no physical evidence to tie Glossip to the crime, so prosecutors initially offered to take the death penalty off the table if he testified against handyman Sneed. But when Glossip continued to maintain his innocence, the prosecution offered the deal instead to Sneed, who was sentenced to life in prison, while Glossip was convicted and sentenced to die.
The case, in many ways, is as remarkable as a True Crime mini-series. Most extraordinary is that Glossip's Supreme Court appeal was supported by Oklahoma's Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a conservative Republican and supporter of the death penalty. After two separate independent investigations found that both Glossip trials had been tainted by prosecutorial misconduct, Drummond took the very rare step of formally asking for a new trial.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, however, refused to accept the attorney general's so-called "confession of error," and the state court maintained that its decision was not reviewable in federal court.
On Tuesday the Supreme Court vociferously disagreed. Writing for the Court majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that the prosecutors had violated their constitutional obligation to correct false testimony elicited from Sneed, the only witness to tie Glossip directly to the crime. The obligation to correct such false testimony, the court observed, is a clear violation of the court's precedents dating back more than 65 years.
Joining Sotomayor in the majority were Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and, for the most part, Amy Coney Barrett.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented and accused the majority of bending "the law at every turn to grant relief to Glossip." Justice Thomas said that the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, and that Sneed's false testimony did not significantly alter the outcome for Glossip anyway.
Justice Neil Gorsuch was recused from the case, presumably because it came before the appeals court he served on prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court.
Much of the credit for Tuesday's win goes to to Attorney General Drummond, said defense attorney Knight. "Only he had the courage to say, 'we're not going to continue to try to kill this man.' That's a tremendous amount of political courage for a man who is now running for governor as well. He saw something that was wrong and he tried to make it right, and he did."
Copyright 2025 NPR
