SCOTUS orders new trial for man Oklahoma courts would have allowed to be executed

Richard Glossip has long proclaimed his innocence, and he was joined by the state's Republican attorney general fighting his conviction at the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered a new trial for Richard Glossip, the man who had been sentenced to death in Oklahoma following a trial that was questioned by many lawyers and advocates; lawmakers of both parties; independent reviews; and, eventually, the state’s Republican attorney general.

Glossip had been facing execution in Oklahoma in 2023 until the justices stepped in to put the scheduled execution on hold in May 2023 while they reviewed his claims.

Glossip has long challenged his conviction and sentence of death for allegedly orchestrating the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese — an allegation he has denied. After Attorney General Gentner Drummond’s election in 2022, Drummond sought his own review of the case. Ultimately, that led to him siding with Glossip — up to and including before the justices in October, where Drummond’s lawyer argued that Glossip’s trial had been tainted due to violations of his constitutional rights.

Six of the eight justices hearing the case — Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case — sided with Glossip and Drummond on two key points: (1) The Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the state court’s decision because that decision depended on a holding about federal law, and (2) The state court incorrectly applied constitutional precedent, Napue v. Illinois, holding that prosecutors need to correct false testimony.

Five of those six justices formed the court’s majority, and, in an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, ordered a new trial for Glossip.

Summing up the ruling, Sotomayor wrote:

The facts as conceded by the attorney general and supported by the record establish a violation of Napue. A new trial is the remedy for a Napue violation. Here, this Court has jurisdiction and a Napue violation occurred. Thus, Glossip is entitled to a new trial.

That went too far for Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the sixth justice to agree that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals misapplied Napue in Glossip’s case.

For Barrett, as well as Justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, the U.S. Supreme Court did not have the authority to order a new trial.

Because Barrett agreed with the majority that the Oklahoma court had misapplied Napue, however, she wrote that “the Court should have corrected the OCCA’s misstatement of Napue v. Illinois and remanded this case for further proceedings.”

Thomas, joined by Alito, dissented — and Barrett joined the part of the dissent arguing against the court’s decision to order a new trial.

In contrast to Sortomayor’s summary, Thomas, in a part of the dissent only for himself and Alito, summarized the court’s ruling this way:

The Court’s decision distorts our jurisdiction, imagines a constitutional violation where none occurred, and abandons basic principles governing the disposition of state-court appeals.

Although he provided no written reasoning at any point over the past two years, Gorsuch presumably recused himself because he had participated in consideration of Glossip’s case when a judge on the federal appeals court.

The unusual circumstances of the case led to two former Justice Department solicitors general arguing against the Oklahoma court’s ruling. Seth Waxman, the WilmerHale partner who served as solicitor general in the Clinton administration, represented Glossip in court. Paul Clement, the Clement & Murphy founding partner who served as solicitor general in the George W. Bush administration, represented Drummond for the state.

Because Drummond and Glossip agreed, the Supreme Court had appointed a lawyer to argue in defense of the state court’s decision, as is its normal practice in such a situation.

Following the ruling, Don Knight, Glossip’s attorney, referenced the six-justice majority supporting the legal principles at issue in the case.

“We are thankful that a clear majority of the Court supports long-standing precedent that prosecutors cannot hide critical evidence from defense lawyers and cannot stand by while their witnesses knowingly lie to the jury. Today was a victory for justice and fairness in our judicial system,” Knight said in a statement. “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.”

For his part, Drummond also celebrated the ruling — while noting that his time in agreement with Glossip might have reached its end.

"Our justice system is greatly diminished when an individual is convicted without a fair trial, but today we can celebrate that a great injustice has been swept away," Drummond said in a statement. "I am pleased the high court has validated my grave concerns with how this prosecution was handled, and I am thankful we now have a fresh opportunity to see that justice is done."

To that end, Drummond said his office will review the ruling and “determine the most appropriate course of action to ensure justice is secured for all involved.”