PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "At the center of the appeal are notes taken by prosecutors involved in Glossip’s trial about Justin Sneed, the man who killed Van Treese with a baseball bat in a hotel. Even though both sides agree Sneed killed Van Treese, Glossip was charged with orchestrating the murder. Glossip’s conviction rested on Sneed’s testimony, but years after Glossip’s conviction, the state disclosed evidence that Sneed was treated for a serious psychiatric condition. The notes indicate prosecutors knew about Sneed’s diagnosis and treatment at the time of Glossip’s trial and, according to Glossip’s supporters, hid that information from his defense. “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.’”
-------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Supreme Court orders new trial for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip," by Devan Cole and John Fritz, published by CNN, on February 25, 2025. (Devan Cole is a writer for CNN Politics, covering the Supreme Court, lower federal courts and the Justice Department. John Fritiz is a reporter covering the Supreme Court for CN);
GIST: "A fractured Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered a new trial for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, whose appeal drew national attention and support from the state’s conservative attorney general, in light of allegations that the state withheld evidence related to its main witness.
The ruling is a major win for Glossip, whose 1998 conviction for arranging the murder of Barry Van Treese a year earlier has been called into question by him and, critically, the state attorney general after new evidence emerged in recent years.
The ruling represents an extraordinary twist in the legal saga surrounding Glossip, who has been scheduled for execution nine times and has eaten his last meal three times only to have his execution stayed.
“We conclude that the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority.
At the center of the appeal are notes taken by prosecutors involved in Glossip’s trial about Justin Sneed, the man who killed Van Treese with a baseball bat in a hotel. Even though both sides agree Sneed killed Van Treese, Glossip was charged with orchestrating the murder.
Glossip’s conviction rested on Sneed’s testimony, but years after Glossip’s conviction, the state disclosed evidence that Sneed was treated for a serious psychiatric condition. The notes indicate prosecutors knew about Sneed’s diagnosis and treatment at the time of Glossip’s trial and, according to Glossip’s supporters, hid that information from his defense.
“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.’”
Five justices sided with Glossip on ordering a new trial. Two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissented. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett would have sent the case back to a lower court for further consideration.
Thomas, writing in a dissent joined by Alito, argued the court’s decision “imagines a constitutional violation where none occurred, and abandons basic principles governing” how federal courts review state court decisions.
During oral arguments in October, several members of the court seemed puzzled by the scant record surrounding the notes, including liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said at one point, “It’s my understanding that there’s never been a court determination of any of these facts,” and Alito, who described the notes as “cryptic.”
04:21
The Glossip case is arguably the highest-profile death penalty case to reach the court in years, and it drew two of the most experienced Supreme Court lawyers in the nation. Seth Waxman, a former solicitor general, argued on Glossip’s behalf. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a Republican who supports sparing Glossip, was represented by Paul Clement, also a former solicitor general.
Even though Drummond called for a new trial, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma upheld Glossip’s sentence, ruling the evidence at issue wouldn’t have changed the outcome of the case and that Glossip’s attorneys knew Sneed was taking lithium.
But Glossip’s attorneys argued that had prosecutors disclosed the lithium treatment and corrected lies Sneed told on the witness stand during the trial about his medical history, it would have cast “serious doubt on his credibility” as the state’s star witness.
Glossip “is thrilled beyond words in many ways,” his attorney, Don Knight, told CNN on Tuesday after speaking with his client.
In a separate statement, Knight called the court’s decision “a victory for justice and fairness in our judicial system.”
“Rich Glossip, who has maintained his innocence for 27 years, will now be given the chance to have the fair trial that he has always been denied,” Knight said.
Drummond indicated his office would decide how to proceed in light of the court’s ruling, saying in a statement, “(O)ur work here in Oklahoma is not done.”
“My office will thoroughly review the ruling, visit with the family members, and determine the most appropriate course of action to ensure justice is secured for all involved,” Drummond said. “I am grateful the justices understood the gravity of the situation. I have long maintained that I do not believe Mr. Glossip is innocent, but it is now an undeniable fact that he did not receive a fair trial.”
The Van Treese family did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday."
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/25/politics/richard-glossip-supreme-court/index.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
