QUOTE OF THE DAY: "In court, Andrea Miller, legal director of the Innocence Project at the Oklahoma City University School of Law and one of several lawyers now representing Glossip, was blunt with the judge. “Frankly, given the history of this case, we don’t think there can be a fair trial,” she said. Nevertheless, the defense team is preparing for another high-profile murder trial. Miller told the judge that famed death penalty lawyer Judy Clarke would be joining Glossip’s team."
--------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Nearly 30 years after the murder — and with the credibility of their star witness irrevocably destroyed — the most logical course of action would have been for the state to offer Glossip a plea to a lesser charge, and finally end his legal ordeal once and for all. Sneed, who is now 47 and remains incarcerated on a life sentence, has changed his story numerous times over the years, making him a terrible witness if prosecutors were to put him on the stand."
—————————————————————————
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "In an email to Drummond’s office, The Intercept asked how Drummond reconciled the new murder charge with his previous statements and with his various legal briefs which conceded that the case against Glossip “hinged almost entirely” on Sneed, whose credibility had been fatally compromised. The Intercept also asked if the state had uncovered new evidence implicating Glossip in the crime.
AG spokesperson Phil Bacharach did not answer the questions. “Because it is an active case, we are unable to comment beyond the news release.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: by Jordan Smith and Liliana Segura, published by 'The Intercept, on January 9, 2025.
SUB-HEADING: "During a hearing in Oklahoma City, the state made clear it will go ahead despite the fact that the case against Glossip has fallen apart."
GIST: "IT WAS AFTER 10 a.m. on Monday morning when Richard Glossip was led into an eighth-floor courtroom in the Oklahoma County Courthouse by three sheriff’s deputies. Wearing orange prison scrubs and Crocs, and shackled at the waist and ankles, Glossip, now 62, looked small compared to the hulking deputies around him. His hair, now almost entirely gray, was long and combed to the side. Though his expression was impassive as he entered the room, his face softened into a smile when he caught sight of his wife Lea and other supporters sitting in the front row.
It was the first time in years that Glossip had been in a courtroom, and it was the first hearing in his case since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in late February that prosecutorial misconduct had so tainted Glossip’s case that his death penalty conviction should be overturned. It was a victory not only for Glossip but also for Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who had taken unprecedented steps to block Glossip’s execution — and fought alongside him to secure the high court’s decision.
“The high court has validated my grave concerns with how this prosecution was handled,” Drummond said shortly after the ruling. “I am thankful we now have a fresh opportunity to see that justice is done.”
Drummond wasn’t in court on Monday morning. But his proxy Jimmy Harmon, chief of the AG’s criminal division was — and signaled that the office is ready to prosecute Glossip for a third time. While Harmon did not publicly announce what the charge would be, Judge Heather Coyle noted that the state has said it would not be seeking the death penalty — suggesting that the state will try Glossip for murder yet again.
The state’s plans were confirmed in a statement released by Drummond’s office shortly after the hearing. “While it was clear to me and to the U.S. Supreme Court that Mr. Glossip did not receive a fair trial, I have never proclaimed his innocence,” Drummond said. “After the high court remanded the matter back to district court, my office thoroughly reviewed the merits of the case against Richard Glossip and concluded that sufficient evidence exists to secure a murder conviction. … Unlike past prosecutors who allowed a key witness to lie on the stand, my office will make sure Mr. Glossip receives a fair trial based on hard facts, solid evidence and truthful testimony.”
Drummond’s announcement that the state would retry Glossip for first-degree murder was a shocking reversal of his recent public statements about the case. Drummond, who is running for governor, made the rounds in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, boasting about his success at the high court. Asked at a press conference how he might resolve the case, Drummond said “everything is on the table; a jury trial, all the way down.” But he noted that it “would be difficult” to retry Glossip after so many years.
More recently, in an April interview on the CBS Evening News, Drummond reemphasized his support of the state’s death penalty, reminding viewers that he has witnessed every execution carried out during his tenure, while making clear that Glossip’s case had jumped out as problematic from the start. Glossip “didn’t murder the victim,” Drummond said.
“Frankly, given the history of this case, we don’t think there can be a fair trial.”
In court, Andrea Miller, legal director of the Innocence Project at the Oklahoma City University School of Law and one of several lawyers now representing Glossip, was blunt with the judge.
“Frankly, given the history of this case, we don’t think there can be a fair trial,” she said. Nevertheless, the defense team is preparing for another high-profile murder trial. Miller told the judge that famed death penalty lawyer Judy Clarke would be joining Glossip’s team.
GLOSSIP WAS TWICE convicted and sentenced to die for the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese inside a seedy Best Budget Inn that Van Treese owned on the outskirts of Oklahoma City. No physical evidence linked Glossip, the motel’s live-in manager, to the crime. The case against him was based almost entirely on the testimony of a 19-year-old maintenance man named Justin Sneed, who admitted to bludgeoning Van Treese to death but insisted it was Glossip’s idea. In exchange for testifying against Glossip, Sneed escaped the death penalty and was sentenced to life without parole.
At issue before the Supreme Court was Glossip’s and Drummond’s contention that prosecutors knew that Sneed, the key witness against Glossip, had lied on the witness stand but had failed to correct his testimony as the state was constitutionally required to do. This failure had violated Glossip’s rights and fundamentally altered the case, the justices found. “Besides Sneed, no other witness and no physical evidence established that Glossip orchestrated Van Treese’s murder,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion. Sneed’s credibility was central to the case and would have been undermined if the jury had learned the truth. “A prosecutor’s midtrial revelation that Sneed lied on the stand would have significantly undercut” his account, Sotomayor wrote.
Since being sentenced to death, Glossip has faced execution nine times. In 2015, he came within moments of lethal injection but was spared after officials realized they had the wrong drugs on hand. A moratorium on executions followed, pushing any new execution date well into the future and giving Glossip’s attorney Don Knight, who had already uncovered compelling evidence of Glossip’s innocence, crucial time to investigate further.
After Nine Execution Dates and Three Last Meals, Richard Glossip May Soon Walk Free
The decade since has brought a steady series of explosive revelations, including that the state destroyed key evidence before Glossip’s 2004 retrial and also hid evidence that Sneed had attempted to recant his testimony implicating Glossip. A slew of new witnesses also came forward to challenge the state’s depiction of Sneed as a meek follower who was under Glossip’s control when he violently murdered Van Treese. They instead described Sneed as dangerous and unpredictable — and entirely capable of killing on his own. Another said that while Sneed was locked up in the Oklahoma County jail, he had bragged about setting up Glossip to take the fall.
The new witnesses offered accounts of the night Van Treese died that flipped the script on the state’s case. According to these witnesses, Sneed often worked in concert with a girlfriend, one of the many sex workers who occasioned the Van Treese’s motel, luring targets into a room to rob them. The woman in question was also said to be in a relationship with Van Treese. Instead of submitting on the night in question, Van Treese fought back, ultimately prompting Sneed to kill him.
A persistent problem for Glossip has been his documented behavior and statements in the wake of Van Treese’s death. Oklahoma City cops became suspicious of Glossip in part because he’d failed to give them information that tied Sneed to the murder. The night Van Treese was killed, Glossip said, Sneed had woken him up around 4 a.m. by knocking on the wall of his apartment, which was adjacent to the motel’s office. Standing outside with a black eye, Sneed told Glossip he had chased off some drunks who had broken a window in one of the motel rooms. According to Glossip, he asked Sneed about his black eye, and Sneed flippantly replied, “I killed Barry.” It wasn’t until the next morning, when no one could find Van Treese, that Glossip realized Sneed might have been serious.
Still, Glossip didn’t tell the cops right away; he said his girlfriend suggested waiting until they figured out what was going on. After Glossip finally confessed this to police, he was charged as an accessory after the fact to Van Treese’s murder — an acknowledgment that Glossip had nothing to do with the killing, but had withheld material information about it. That charge was escalated to capital murder after Sneed told detectives that Glossip had masterminded the crime.
There was good reason to be skeptical of this story. Not only was there no evidence to support it, Sneed implicated Glossip after a highly coercive interview by Oklahoma City homicide detectives, who repeatedly named Glossip as a possible conspirator before asking Sneed for his version of events.
Nearly 30 years after the murder — and with the credibility of their star witness irrevocably destroyed — the most logical course of action would have been for the state to offer Glossip a plea to a lesser charge, and finally end his legal ordeal once and for all. Sneed, who is now 47 and remains incarcerated on a life sentence, has changed his story numerous times over the years, making him a terrible witness if prosecutors were to put him on the stand. In an ordinary case, the Supreme Court’s ruling would leave the question of a new trial to the elected district attorney in Oklahoma City, Vicki Behenna, who would decide how to proceed. But Drummond’s announcement on Monday made it clear that the ultimate decision is his to make.
For now, Glossip is being held in isolation at the Oklahoma County Detention Center, where he was moved in April. The jail is notoriously chaotic and violent: Seven people have died inside since the beginning of the year alone. On Monday morning, Judge Coyle scheduled a hearing to consider the defense’s request that Glossip be released from jail on bond pending a new trial.
In an email to Drummond’s office, The Intercept asked how Drummond reconciled the new murder charge with his previous statements and with his various legal briefs which conceded that the case against Glossip “hinged almost entirely” on Sneed, whose credibility had been fatally compromised. The Intercept also asked if the state had uncovered new evidence implicating Glossip in the crime.
AG spokesperson Phil Bacharach did not answer the questions. “Because it is an active case, we are unable to comment beyond the news release.”
The entire story can be read at:
https://theintercept.com/2025/06/09/richard-glossip-new-trial-oklahoma-gentner-drummond/
—————————————
Liliana Segura: "Liliana Segura is an award-winning investigative journalist covering the U.S. criminal justice system, with a longtime focus on harsh sentencing, the death penalty, and wrongful convictions. She was previously an associate editor at the Nation Magazine, where she edited a number of award-winning stories and earned a 2014 Media for a Just Society Award for her writing on prison profiteering. While at The Intercept, Segura has received the Texas Gavel Award in 2016 and the 2017 Innocence Network Journalism Award for her investigations into convictions in Arizona and Ohio. In 2019 she was honored in the Abolitionist category of the Frederick Douglass 200, a recognition given by the Frederick Douglass Family Initiatives and the Antiracist Research and Policy Center at American University." Segura has appeared on NPR, MSNBC, CNN International, Democracy Now!, and numerous other outlets. Her speaking engagements have included public interviews with authors such as Michelle Alexander and Bryan Stevenson. Her writing has appeared in the Washington Post and Colorlines, and has been reprinted in outlets ranging from prison magazines to the anthologies "The Best American Legal Writing" and "Against Equality: Prisons Will Not Protect You.” She lives in Nashville, Tennessee.
Jordan Smith: "Jordan Smith is a state and national award-winning investigative journalist based in Kansas City, Missouri. She has covered the criminal legal system for more than 25 years and, during that time, has developed a reputation as a resourceful and dogged reporter with a talent for analyzing complex social and legal issues. She spent more than 20 years reporting in Texas where she was regarded as one of the best investigative reporters in the state. Her investigative work in wrongful conviction cases has helped to exonerate six people. A longtime staff writer for the Austin Chronicle, her work has also appeared in The Nation, the Crime Report, and the Texas Observer, among other places."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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;
————————————————————————————————-----
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;
