The Supreme Court overturned Richard Glossip’s death sentence for a 1997 murder, ordering a new trial amid revelations the prosecution failed to disclose key evidence.
At a Glance
- The Supreme Court voted 6-2 to overturn Glossip’s conviction for the 1997 murder of his boss, Barry Van Treese
- Prosecutors allegedly failed to correct false testimony and withheld evidence that could have supported Glossip’s defense
- The case relied primarily on testimony from Justin Sneed, who admitted to the murder but implicated Glossip in exchange for avoiding the death penalty
- Oklahoma’s Attorney General acknowledged prosecutorial errors and supported a new trial
- If retried, Glossip will not face the death penalty according to the Oklahoma County District Attorney
Supreme Court Overturns Controversial Conviction
In a significant ruling that has caught the attention of death penalty opponents and advocates for judicial reform, the United States Supreme Court has overturned the murder conviction of Richard Glossip, an Oklahoma inmate who has spent more than two decades on death row. The high court’s 6-2 decision came after mounting evidence of prosecutorial misconduct in a case that has drawn national attention. Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the proceedings, likely due to his previous role on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals which had jurisdiction over Oklahoma cases.
Glossip was convicted of masterminding the 1997 murder of his boss, Barry Van Treese, who owned the motel where Glossip worked as a manager. The prosecution alleged that Glossip hired maintenance man Justin Sneed to kill Van Treese in a murder-for-hire plot. Sneed confessed to beating Van Treese to death with a baseball bat but testified that Glossip had paid him to commit the murder. In exchange for his testimony against Glossip, Sneed avoided the death penalty and instead received a life sentence without parole.
Prosecutorial Misconduct at Center of Decision
The Supreme Court determined that prosecutors violated their constitutional obligation by failing to correct false testimony and withholding potentially exculpatory evidence. Among the most troubling aspects of the case was that prosecutors concealed information about Sneed’s psychiatric condition, which could have been vital for the defense to question his credibility. Additionally, evidence that might have supported Glossip’s innocence claim, including motel receipts and other items, was destroyed during the investigation.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond took the unusual step of ordering an independent review of the case. After examining the findings, Drummond acknowledged serious prosecutorial errors and advocated for a new trial.
⚖️Supreme Court Orders New Trial for Oklahoma Death Row Inmate Richard Glossip
On February 25, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision, ordering a new trial for Richard Glossip, an Oklahoma death row inmate whose case has drawn widespread attention due to… pic.twitter.com/XYe35swcSS
— Bradley Trenderender (@BTrenderender) February 25, 2025
Future Proceedings and Implications
If Glossip faces a new trial, his legal situation will be substantially different. Oklahoma County District Attorney Vicki Zemp Behenna has stated that Glossip would not face the death penalty in any retrial. The state has indicated it still considers Glossip potentially guilty of aiding and abetting after the fact, a charge that would not warrant capital punishment. Given that Glossip has already served more than 25 years in prison, including multiple near-executions, any further incarceration would likely be minimal.
Death penalty opponents have long pointed to cases like Glossip’s as evidence of fundamental flaws in how capital cases are prosecuted and the difficulty of ensuring absolute certainty before imposing the ultimate punishment. The destruction of evidence, reliance on testimony from co-defendants seeking leniency, and prosecutorial misconduct exemplify the systemic issues that can lead to wrongful convictions in capital cases.
