The Oklahoma court's decision refusing to throw out Richard Glossip's conviction in the face of "grave prosecutorial misconduct" has "no valid place in our system of justice."
I had to read this twice to make sure I understood..... I kept thinking I was misinterpreting something but nope I was not. Rarity, a Conservative Republican AG does not want the death penalty for an inmate. And admits that there was wrong doing, cover-ups, lies. But OCCA ignores it. WTH
It’s a pleasant surprise to see an AG arguing against the death penalty, because justice. Maybe the Supreme court no longer agrees, but I think justice is always relevant, even more so in death cases. Alas, they don’t care what I think.
Terrifying—that the OCCA bull-headedly refuses to consider actual facts. There was a time when I thought SCOTUS was reasonable —not anymore. It’s not “rule of law” determining court cases at SCOTUS level, either.
I'm not entirely sure I understand the purpose of oral argument for this case. Mr Michel has drawn a truly dog of a case -- not at all the first time a Court-appointed amicus has had to defend the indefensible, but an extreme example. After the reply brief is submitted (on July 9, if Clement & Murphy do things the way they always do), the Court has, and should take, the option of writing a quick per curiam and dispensing of the case.
We do have conservatives out there who have principles. Criminal justice writers have written about the complexity of the matter in the states in recent years. I appreciate respect for the rule of law wherever it comes. Glossip served around 25 years in prison. He should be out, even if he was guilty, which it is not clear he is.
I had to read this twice to make sure I understood..... I kept thinking I was misinterpreting something but nope I was not. Rarity, a Conservative Republican AG does not want the death penalty for an inmate. And admits that there was wrong doing, cover-ups, lies. But OCCA ignores it. WTH
It’s a pleasant surprise to see an AG arguing against the death penalty, because justice. Maybe the Supreme court no longer agrees, but I think justice is always relevant, even more so in death cases. Alas, they don’t care what I think.
Terrifying—that the OCCA bull-headedly refuses to consider actual facts. There was a time when I thought SCOTUS was reasonable —not anymore. It’s not “rule of law” determining court cases at SCOTUS level, either.
FYI the hyperlink under “damaging testimony” seems to be broken.
I'm not entirely sure I understand the purpose of oral argument for this case. Mr Michel has drawn a truly dog of a case -- not at all the first time a Court-appointed amicus has had to defend the indefensible, but an extreme example. After the reply brief is submitted (on July 9, if Clement & Murphy do things the way they always do), the Court has, and should take, the option of writing a quick per curiam and dispensing of the case.
Any idea where the joint appendix or glossip’s brief itself are? They were due yesterday as well but don’t appear on the scotus docket . . .
We do have conservatives out there who have principles. Criminal justice writers have written about the complexity of the matter in the states in recent years. I appreciate respect for the rule of law wherever it comes. Glossip served around 25 years in prison. He should be out, even if he was guilty, which it is not clear he is.
Glossip's case has demonstrated every end of America's perverse death penalty jurisprudence and practice.
https://medicineandjustice.substack.com/p/richard-glossip-meet-the-face-of?selectQuote=true
Holy smoke! If the OCCA
does not reverse their ruling
and this man is put to death,
they are guilty of murder.