SCOTUS Sides With Obviously Innocent Richard Glossip, Orders Oklahoma To Vacate His Conviction
I'm not crying, you're crying.
In a rare moment of actually doing the right thing, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has determined that Oklahoma inmate Richard Glossip should have his conviction vacated and be granted a new trial.
Glossip was convicted in 1997 of a murder he did not commit — the murder of Barry Von Treese, the owner of the Best Budget Inn where he worked as a manager. Another man named Justin Sneed actually committed the murder and Glossip was convicted of supposedly “hiring” him by promising they could split any money Sneed was able to steal afterwards. If your first thought was “Wait! Why wouldn’t Sneed just keep all of the money himself? How is ‘how about you commit this crime and then give me half of the money afterwards!’ any kind of good deal?” well, that’s just the tip of the iceberg in terms of things that have made absolutely no goddamn sense about this entire case from the beginning.
This morning, after having his execution date changed nine times, after eating three last meals, after years of insisting upon his (very obvious) innocence, after years of work from lawyers, activists and documentary filmmakers seeking to prove his innocence, after years of even Oklahoma Republicans arguing for his case to be overturned, SCOTUS has ordered the state of Oklahoma to vacate his conviction.
SCOTUS determined that Glossip’s conviction must be vacated on the grounds that his constitutional rights were violated when prosecutors in the case knowingly allowed false testimony from Justin Sneed. The majority opinion was written by Sonia Sotomayor, who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson, with Barrett partially dissenting and Thomas and Alito fully dissenting (because of course). Justice Neil Gorsuch took no part in the case, having previously recused himself (likely due to having previously ruled against Glossip in a previous iteration of the case).
The case rested not upon Glossip’s actual innocence (as the Supreme Court previously determined that “actual innocence” is no reason not to execute a person), but rather upon the fact that the prosecution knowingly allowed Justin Sneed to lie on the stand about being treated for bipolar disorder.
“Had the prosecution corrected Sneed on the stand, his credibility plainly would have suffered. That correction would have revealed to the jury not just that Sneed was untrustworthy (as amicus points out, the jury already knew he repeatedly lied to the police), but also that Sneed was willing to lie to them under oath,” Sotomayor wrote. “Such a revelation would be significant in any case, and was especially so here where Sneed was already ‘nobody’s idea of a strong witness.’”
An Oklahoma jury convicted petitioner Richard Glossip of paying Justin Sneed to murder Barry Van Treese and sentenced him to death. At trial, Sneed admitted he beat Van Treese to death, but testified that Glossip had offered him thousands of dollars to do so. Glossip confessed he helped Sneed conceal his crime after the fact, but he denied any involvement in the murder.
Nearly two decades later, the State disclosed eight boxes of previously withheld documents from Glossip’s trial. These documents show that Sneed suffered from bipolar disorder, which, combined with his known drug use, could have caused impulsive outbursts of violence. They also established, the State agrees, that a jail psychiatrist prescribed Sneed lithium to treat that condition, and that the prosecution allowed Sneed falsely to testify at trial that he had never seen a psychiatrist. Faced with that evidence, Oklahoma’s attorney general confessed error. Before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA), the State conceded that the prosecution’s failure to correct Sneed’s testimony violated Napue v. Illinois, 360 U. S. 264 (1959), which held that prosecutors have a constitutional obligation to correct false testimony. The attorney general accordingly asked the court to grant Glossip a new trial. The OCCA declined to grant relief because, it held, the State’s concession was not “based in law or fact.” Because the prosecution violated its obligations under Napue, we reverse the judgment below and remand the case for a new trial.
It’s not clear if Oklahoma will even go forward with a new trial, given that Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond is opposed to executing Glossip and the fact that there is actual video of Detective Bob Bemo desperately trying to get Sneed to implicate Glossip (whose last name Sneed didn’t even know) in the plan, after having been personally annoyed by Glossip upon first meeting him.
Bemo also, very weirdly, claimed that although he believed that Glossip had hired Sneed to kill Van Treese, Sneed only meant to rob Van Treese and killed him by accident when he got carried away.
It shouldn’t be lost on any of us that Glossip is a white man and there are still God knows how many obviously innocent people of color in prison thanks to equally awful cops and equally absurd trials. That being said, every innocent person freed is a massive victory.
This is a good decision and a good day that has been a long time coming. With every horrid thing that is going on right now, it’s a good reminder that sometimes, even things that seem like lost causes can get turned around if people fight hard enough for them.
PREVIOUSLY ON WONKETTE!
Before this even posted I'd already written a couple of times that you were going to be overjoyed, Robyn. Happy for Glossip and I'm also happy for you b/c I know you care so much about ppl injured by the criminal justice system.
{Drudge sirens}: "DOGE Staffers Resign After Being Asked To Dismantle ‘Critical Public Services’
All who resigned had previously held senior roles at tech companies like Google and Amazon.
WASHINGTON (AP) — More than 20 civil service employees resigned Tuesday from billionaire Trump adviser Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, saying they were refusing to use their technical expertise to “dismantle critical public services.”
“We swore to serve the American people and uphold our oath to the Constitution across presidential administrations,” the 21 staffers wrote in a joint resignation letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press. “However, it has become clear that we can no longer honor those commitments.”
The staffers who resigned worked for what was once known as the United States Digital Service, an office established during President Barack Obama’s administration after the botched rollout of Healthcare.gov.
All had previously held senior roles at such tech companies as Google and Amazon and wrote in their resignation letter that they joined the government out of a sense of duty to public service.
According to the staffers, people wearing White House visitors’ badges, some of whom would not give their names, grilled the nonpartisan employees about their qualifications and politics. Some made statements that indicated they had a limited technical understanding. Many were young and seemed guided by ideology and fandom of Musk — not improving government technology."
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/doge-staff-resign-critical-public-services_n_67bde9f3e4b0659288fe1eb1