Glossip v. Oklahoma: Due Process and the Death Penalty

In its 2024-2025 term, the U.S. Supreme Court is deliberating a pivotal case, Glossip v. Oklahoma. This case raises critical questions about prosecutorial misconduct and fairness in capital punishment trials. 

The Case in Context

Richard Glossip, a former motel manager, was sentenced to death in 1998 for allegedly orchestrating the murder of his employer. Justin Sneed, the confessed killer, testified against Glossip, claiming he acted on Glossip’s orders. In exchange for his testimony, Sneed avoided a death sentence, making his credibility central to the case.

Although Glossip’s first conviction was overturned due to inadequate legal representation, he was retried in 2004 and again convicted. Years later, evidence surfaced indicating prosecutors had withheld critical information, including Sneed's mental health history and treatment for bipolar disorder. Moreover, Sneed provided false testimony about his psychiatric care. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a Republican, has since acknowledged the due process flaws in the case and has been advocating for granting Glossip a new trial. State courts, however, have denied these motions, bringing the issue to the Supreme Court.

Legal Questions Before the Court

The Supreme Court is examining whether the suppression of evidence and reliance on false testimony, with failure to correct it, in court violated Glossip’s due process under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois. The former case states that prosecutors suppressing favorable evidence to the defense violates due process (Brady violation). The latter mandates the overturning of convictions based on false testimony that could influence a jury's decision. 

According to Wright Durocher, another key question is whether a death sentence should be overturned when a case is so compromised by mistakes that even the state no longer supports the conviction. The Court is considering its jurisdiction to override a state court decision when the state’s attorney general concedes that significant procedural and evidentiary errors occurred. 

Justices are divided on whether these issues justify federal intervention, with the most conservative of them questioning the significance of the impact of the suppressed evidence on the jury’s verdict.

Implications for Justice

This case highlights long-standing issues with the death penalty, such as using unreliable testimony and making it difficult for people to appeal unfair convictions. The outcome of this case could set critical precedents for handling allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in capital cases by establishing stricter guidelines for lower courts to follow.

Looking Forward

The Court’s decision, expected in June 2025, will determine whether Glossip receives a new trial or faces execution. In the near future, death penalty experts expect more cases challenging whether people on death row receive proper due process. 

References:

1. Brady v. Maryland 360 U.S. 83 (1963) 

2. Napue v. Illinois 360 U.S. 264 (1959) 

3. “No clear decision as justices debate Richard Glossip’s death sentence” (Howe, SCOTUSblog, 2024). 

4. “At Supreme Court, Oklahoma Seeks New Trial for Richard Glossip” (Equal Justice Initiative, 2024).

5. “Supreme Court to hear ‘remarkable’ Oklahoma death penalty appeal from Richard Glossip” (Dwyer, ABC News, 2024).

6. “How an Oklahoma death penalty case reached the Supreme Court” (PBS News, 2024).

7. “Glossip v. Oklahoma” (Durocher, American Constitution Society, 2024).