September 28: Richard Glossip: Oklahoma: Question of the day: The Death Penalty News asks," Why is Oklahoma's Attorney General seeking a new trial for Richard Glossip. and comes up with some interesting answers, noting that, "The conscience of Oklahomans values fairness. We expect our criminal justice system to be so. However, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that Oklahoma County prosecutors acted so unfairly that the 2004 conviction and death sentence of Richard Glossip had to be undone," - and that, " In 1997, Glossip was a motel manager. The maintenance man, Justin Sneed, killed the motel owner. Sneed implicated Glossip, making a deal to escape the death penalty. Glossip’s past trials have all been deemed unconstitutional. Yet he was on death row for 27 years and had his last meal three times."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY:  "What changed for Drummond to now pursue a third murder prosecution? A re-trial using Sneed is troubling given the court’s ruling that “Sneed was willing to lie to [the jury] under oath.” Drummond is running for governor, and I would hate to think politics, or his electability have anything to do with this about-face. Drummond publicly vowed Glossip “will receive a fair trial this time around,” but how can any trial at this stage achieve fairness? The grave prosecutorial misconduct has made fairness virtually impossible. A new trial cannot make a lying witness suddenly trustworthy, or bring back deceased witnesses to cross-examine them about state-withheld evidence. Neither can a new trial recreate destroyed evidence. These are lasting, corrosive effects. Does taking another crack at Glossip after prosecutors knowingly used perjured testimony and concealed documents align with our community’s conscience of fair play?"

----------------------------------------------

COMMENTARY: "Why is Oklahoma's Attorney General seeking a new trial for Richard Glossip," published by Death Penalty News, on September 10, 2025. ( "Death Penalty News" is a weekly bulletin or compilation of news and developments related to the death penalty, with sources including the  Amnesty International and the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). Amnesty International previously published "Death Penalty News" as a quarterly bulletin, while the Death Penalty Information Center currently provides weekly "Death Penalty News and Developments" updates on their website.")

GIST: "The conscience of Oklahomans values fairness. We expect our criminal justice system to be so. However, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that Oklahoma County prosecutors acted so unfairly that the 2004 conviction and death sentence of Richard Glossip had to be undone.

In 1997, Glossip was a motel manager. The maintenance man, Justin Sneed, killed the motel owner. Sneed implicated Glossip, making a deal to escape the death penalty. Glossip’s past trials have all been deemed unconstitutional. Yet he was on death row for 27 years and had his last meal three times.

The Supreme Court found:

• Sneed lied under oath; prosecutors knew and failed to correct.
• Sneed discussed “recanting my testimony,” and “it was a mistake.”
• The State destroyed evidence.
• Prosecutors withheld boxes (8 total) containing evidence favorable to Glossip.
• As a former U.S. attorney and federal prosecutor (obtaining convictions for the Oklahoma City bombing), I believe withholding evidence and allowing witness perjury to be a disgrace to the profession, victims and their families.

Prosecutors, until 2022, denied access to Boxes 1-7. They removed material, creating Box 8. In 2023, newly elected Attorney General Genter Drummond released Box 8. Drummond declined to defend the prosecutorial misconduct revealed. A bold decision, and the only fair one an ethical prosecutor could make.

Drummond should be commended for recognizing Glossip’s conviction was unlawfully obtained. Instead, the Oklahoma District Attorneys Council advocated for Glossip’s execution. The Supreme Court rejected that, ruling the tainted conviction could not stand.

Until recently, Drummond indicated that Glossip was not guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt:

• April 1, 2023: “We are in agreement” to release Glossip on accessory after the fact (not murder) and time served.
• April 24, 2023: “Although he may be guilty of first-degree murder, the record (complete with the new evidence that the jury did not hear nor consider in rendering its verdict and death sentence) does not support that he is guilty of first-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.”
• June 2023: If Glossip’s case was remanded, “I predict it will probably be pled out.”
• Oct. 9, 2024: “Our prosecutors elicited perjury here … without [Sneed’s] testimony, there's no way to get the conviction of murder”.

The Supreme Court found Sneed had lied to the jury, prosecutors knew this yet failed to correct, and “[a]dditional prosecutorial misconduct, such as violating the rule of sequestration, destroying evidence, and withholding witness statements, further undermines confidence in the verdict.”

Nevertheless, in June, Drummond announced he would re-try Glossip for murder. We must ask:

What changed for Drummond to now pursue a third murder prosecution?

A re-trial using Sneed is troubling given the court’s ruling that “Sneed was willing to lie to [the jury] under oath.” Drummond is running for governor, and I would hate to think politics, or his electability have anything to do with this about-face.

Drummond publicly vowed Glossip “will receive a fair trial this time around,” but how can any trial at this stage achieve fairness?

The grave prosecutorial misconduct has made fairness virtually impossible. A new trial cannot make a lying witness suddenly trustworthy, or bring back deceased witnesses to cross-examine them about state-withheld evidence. Neither can a new trial recreate destroyed evidence. These are lasting, corrosive effects.

Does taking another crack at Glossip after prosecutors knowingly used perjured testimony and concealed documents align with our community’s conscience of fair play?

Drummond seems uninterested in holding accountable the Oklahoma County prosecutors whose conduct was condemned by the Supreme Court, stating in a news conference:

“I have no interest in pursuing prosecutorial misconduct on a 25-year case.” Shouldn’t that principle equally apply to the defendant if fairness is to be achieved?

Announcing you will not prosecute misconduct does not discourage future wrongdoing — it encourages it.

Compounding this is Drummond’s hand-picked team for retrial. Several are former Oklahoma County prosecutors; public information also shows that two members, including the lead prosecutor, denied access in 2022 to the very boxes that led to the Supreme Court reversal. We cannot overlook that Oklahoma would have executed a man had those boxes not been released.

Why not select neutral, unconnected prosecutors to handle the case?

Fairness cannot mean putting people in charge who have apparent conflicts of interest. They could face potential discipline for their actions, creating an incentive to pursue a conviction to cleanse their past misdeeds.

Drummond appointed a prosecutor from the DA’s Council — the group that opposed overturning the conviction, denied any prosecutorial misconduct and called for execution. I implore Drummond to reconsider the irreversible impacts of the state’s wrongdoing that cannot be erased with a new trial.

Drummond has authority to appoint a neutral special counsel, similar to my appointment in 2019 to an investigation of David Boren when the AG’s office had conflicts of interest. Respectfully, this current team’s prior entanglements are further contaminating this retrial.

Efforts to reach Drummond were unsuccessful.

“I am committed to ensuring the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial,” Drummond stated. Richard Glossip has had two unconstitutional trials. It appears the attorney general and his hand-picked team (rife with conflicts) are well on their way to a third."

The entire story can be read at:

https://deathpenaltynews.blogspot.com/2025/09/why-is-oklahomas-attorney-general.html#more

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;

-------------------------------------------------------------------

September 27: Scott Watson: New Zealand: Major (Unwelcome) Development: Having already spent a quarter of a century in prison for the murders of Olivia Hope and Benn Smart, he has lost his bid to quash convictions as the nation's Court of Appeal has ruled that he had a 'fair trial', RNZ (Reporter Samantha Gee) reports, noting that: Watson's lawyer, Kerry Cook said Watson was "very disappointed" with the decision. "He maintains that he is innocent. He has instructed us to prepare an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court."'

BACKGROUND: From a previous post of this Blog: "The young friends had planned to sleep on the chartered yacht Tamarack but arrived to find the berths full. A man travelling alone on Guy Wallace's water taxi offered them a place to sleep on his yacht instead, and Wallace dropped the trio off about 4am. Wallace, who died in 2021, initially described the yacht as a wooden ketch with two masts - totally different to Watson's steel-hulled sloop, Blade. He also gave evidence  that Watson was the mystery man on his water taxi, but later recanted that testimony. At the 1999 trial, Wallace told the jury he had picked Watson out of a montage of photos  from police because he recognised his "hooded" eyes.  The "blink photo", as it became known, showed Watson with his eyes half-closed. Wallace later said police pressured him, and also admitted he may have been confused over the location of the yacht. Bar manager Ros McNeilly also identified Watson from a photo montage - but changed her mind after she saw a photograph of Watson on the night of the party. An inquiry by the Independent Police Conduct Authority in 2010 found the use of the photo montage was "problematic" and fell short of best practice. Two prison informants gave evidence at the trial that Watson had confessed to them. However, one later said he had lied under pressure, and it was revealed the other man had never shared a cell with Watson."

https://draft.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/3868778481652148364

----------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE  OF THE DAY: "Watson's lawyer, Kerry Cook said Watson was "very disappointed" with the decision. "He maintains that he is innocent. He has instructed us to prepare an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court."'

———————————————————

STORY: "Scott Watson loses bid to quash convictions as court rules he had a 'fair trial," by Reporters Samantha Gee and Nelson Marlborough (Te Tauiho), published by RNZ, on September 10, 2025.

The Court of Appeal has turned down a bid to quash Scott Watson's convictions for the murders of Olivia Hope and Ben Smart.

GIST: "Watson's lawyer, Kerry Cook said Watson was "very disappointed" with the decision.

"He maintains that he is innocent. He has instructed us to prepare an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court."'

Watson - who has spent a quarter of a century in prison for the murders of Smart and Hope - had his case heard by the Court of Appeal last June.

The Blenheim friends, aged 21 and 17, were last seen stepping off a water taxi onto a stranger's yacht in the Marlborough Sounds in the early hours of 1 January, 1998, after a New Year's Eve party at Furneaux Lodge. Their bodies have never been found.

The appeal focused on the use of photo montages shown to witnesses ahead of the original trial and that reliability of  forensic handling used  to show two hairs found on Watson's boat belonged to Hope."

A nearly 300-page decision released on Wednesday by Justices Christine French, Patricia Courtney and Susan Thomas, found there was no miscarriage of justice in relation to the hair evidence or the identification of Watson by water taxi skipper Guy Wallace.

"Considering the case overall, the court is satisfied Watson's trial was fair and the jury's guilty verdicts followed the crown presenting a compelling case.

"Watson's murder convictions must stand."

'We'll just keep plodding on'

Scott Watson's father, Chris Watson said he felt let down by the decision.

"I talked to Scott this morning, he's disappointed as you'd expect, but life goes on, or what life he has.

"We're pretty used to the kick in the stomach that you get when you get this news, we thought we had it and it boils down to three people's opinions."

He said he felt a bit jaded after the last 25 years, but would continue the fight to prove Watson was innocent.

"We'll just keep plodding on."

A long awaited appeal

Watson was found guilty of the murders at a jury trial in the High Court in 1999.

The key issue at the trial was whether Watson was the lone man with whom Hope and Smart boarded a boat the last time they were seen. It was now accepted that the pair died at the hands of the lone man in circumstances which amounted to murder.

In the absence of a murder weapon or any bodies, the original case relied on circumstantial evidence - including two blonde hairs that were found to belong to Hope and were recovered from Watson's boat Blade, and that Watson was picked out as the lone man by Wallace from a photographic montage.

Watson appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeal in 2000 and it was dismissed. He then applied to the Privy Council for special leave to appeal, which was declined in late 2003.

An application for the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy, a special avenue for criminal cases to be reopened where a person may have been wrongly convicted, was declined in 2013.

Watson made a  second application for a royal pardon in  November 2017, and in 2020, the governor-general referred the question of his convictions to the Court of Appeal to determine whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred

The focus of the five-day hearing, held last June, was to consider new evidence about the hair belonging to Hope and the reliability of Wallace's identification of Watson.

Watson has been denied parole five times since he became eligible eight years ago - partly because he has refused to admit his guilt.

Hair evidence and photo identification

In the appeal, Watson relied on new expert opinion challenging the reliability of the forensic evidence at trial about the two hairs found on a tiger-patterned blanket aboard Blade.

The court considered the collection and handling of the hairs, the reliability of the results obtained from the DNA testing and the fairness and accuracy of the evidence given about those tests at trial.

It found there was no issue with the reliability of the hair evidence, and that it was extremely unlikely they had become mixed up in the lab with those taken from Hope's home or transferred to Blade through other means.

The appeal also considered whether a photo montage used by police had predisposed witnesses to pick out Watson.

At the original trial, the Crown's case relied completely on the positive identification of Watson by water taxi driver Wallace, who dropped off the young pair to a stranger's yacht in the early hours.

That positive identification was critically important to the Crown case, as the Court of Appeal had confirmed in 2000 and again in 2022.

After initially describing a completely different man and failing to pick Watson out of a montage of photos, Wallace was shown a single picture of Watson.

Three months later, after being shown a series of photos known as 'montage B', Wallace picked out Watson as the man he had seen.

Wallace - who took his own life in 2021 - recanted soon after, saying he was pressured by police and for two decades he vowed Watson was not the mystery man.

The court found the photo montage did not predispose witnesses to pick out Watson and that the cumulative effect of other circumstantial evidence, including various witnesses' descriptions of Watson from those at Furneaux Lodge on the night Hope and Smart disappeared, supported Wallace's identification of Watson in the photo montage.

'A fair trial'

The Court of Appeal said given the "continued controversy surrounding this case" it had to demonstrate it had fully considered all matters raised by Watson.

It said the only real issue at trial was whether he was the lone man on the water taxi that night. Both the Crown and defence had accepted at trial that the lone man identified at Furneaux Lodge was the same man transported by Wallace on the water taxi.

The court said the circumstantial evidence against Watson included descriptions of his interactions with numerous other partygoers that night, significant inconsistencies between his own explanation of his movements on New Year's Day and the sightings (and non-sightings) of Blade, the forensic evidence, and that he immediately repainted and sanitised his boat after leaving Endeavour Inlet.

"Though the defence offered alternative explanations, Watson's conduct from daybreak and in the following days was consistent with the actions of someone intent on avoiding detection and concealing incriminating evidence."

It was the Crown case that the murderer had to be a man who attended Furneaux Lodge and had a yacht moored in the inlet on 31 December, 1997, in the location described by witnesses, and who was in all probability the yacht's sole occupant.

Therefore by elimination, the Crown said Watson was the murderer.

"The court does not suggest there were not errors and misstatements made during the course of the trial or in respect of aspects of the evidence. That is hardly surprising in a trial (and police investigation) the length and complexity of Watson's.

"However, there was nothing in these errors and misstatements, either individually or cumulatively, which amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

"It was a fair trial.""

The entire story can be read at: 

scott

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;

-------------------------------------------------------------------