When a prosecutor says that someone is on death row based on a lie, a just system would fix that. In our system, the outcome for Richard Glossip is still uncertain.
You’re certainly right about that — and it absolutely is relevant — although it’s not the only distinction. (I try very hard not to compare individual death cases against one another, since so many things go into reaching a result where someone is actually executed, which is why I didn’t want to draw that case into this report — because I don’t want to get bogged down in discussion of those differences. In sum: They’re both awful, though there are differences.)
So I’m wondering why the prosecutor’s unsworn statement attached to an amicus brief in the Supreme Court and not earlier presented as a sworn statement to the trial court, should be given the time of day.
This case reminds me of "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" scene where the benighted lad is trying to oust and sweep the water-bucket-carrying brigade of mops out the door.
If I have this right, both the original AG and the current AG, nearly 30 years apart, concede to errors in the original trial, that the prosecutors spoke to Sneed, who only mentioned his bi-polar diagnosis and treatment, but went no farther, and the prosecutors didn't turn that knowledge or notes of knowledge, of said mental diagnosis over to the defense, who knew nothing about the diagnosis nor did Glossip? I will admit to not reading the entire case, and its ensuing years of post-conviction actions, however, I will say that what I have read and what Roberts asked seems to be consistent with his attitude of obtuseness by asking if a witness lying, or perjuring, himself, would make a different jury outcome stunningly smug and not so stunningly recurrent. It gives me complete satisfaction the NY jury convicted correctly on Trump's election interference case with Cohen being the firestorm witness. If I read the Cannon hearing transcript and analysis, of Trump's hearing on Smith's appointment, correctly, it is usual for amicus briefs to be filed, especially at the SCOTUS level, but highly unusual for the actual amici curiae, to be invited to speak, at any hearing, but certainly so at the SCOTUS level and here we have that person invited by appointment by the court
itself, is that right, wrong, or both? Of course, as in Cannon's invitation, the amici curiae, was known by the defendent, Trump, and by two SCOTUS justices in this case. I truly don't believe, at any point, conflicts of interest are of concern any longer. Drummond had an "independent" review of the facts done while the amici curiae is not independent. I'm having flashbacks to Teresa Halbach's murder in WI where the family was so adamant about getting justice even if the facts state the justice they're getting is a falsehood they're willing to overlook. I followed that case and the ensuing removal of the county prosecutor closely as it was right up the road for me. Justice isn't served when you can't put your head down at night, unless you're, perhaps, one John Roberts, Alito or Thomas, knowing the outcome, has the kind of doubt that serves only to mitigate the suffering of the 10,047 days without a loved one at the expense of having that suffering continue as doubt will always be a pervading sense of conscience for "a pound of flesh". It would be for me as one with a conscience and also a practical sense of justice that attorneys, prosecutors, witnesses and judges aren't infallible. I have only made it down the road to a lengthy process of suing a circuit court judge, once my attorney, and with hindsight I can say I made so many mistakes as the plaintiff. If only...I appreciate you're writings and opinions on all these cases and as I follow along I can't agree with retired Judge Luttig, who I respect immensely, that the SCOTUS decision is final and the last say at the highest level of law in the land in these times. I'm glad Gorsuch recused himself as he should have in the 14th amendment case but certainly this one. Thomas and Alito have no right to have sat in judgment of cases where they are completely remiss of all standards of conflicts creating the need for recusal. Self arbiters they are not nor are the other two, Robert's and Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas and Roberts, in my humble opinion, are intimately familiar with false testimony but perhaps not perjury. Alito and Barrett are more the "I do not recall" types. Neither shows confidence in their ability and performances to the detriment of so so many. When another shooter is just another "mentally ill psycho" perhaps that will rattle the pillars of tyranny on today's conservative majority SCOTUS.
The amicus situation before Cannon and here are completely different. This is the way the Supreme Court regularly deals with cases when there is no one among the parties representing a particular, essential position in the case. It usually happens like once or twice a term.
And, while I’m not thrilled with the fact that it’s regularly former clerks who get the appointment, most SCOTUS advocates are former clerks, so it would be a little weird not to allow former clerks to be appointed amicus.
Got it. I didn’t know that. I try! Thank you for replying and I’ll continue to learn. Keeping up with all of this is hard for you, the professional, imagine my brain soup!
Interesting and provocative insight - - which is why I signed onto this site. Back in the day when Glossip was spared, I thought his case was a shoo-in for a NT. Now I don't know. Just another reason to get rid of this penal carbuncle on the face of US justice.
While I have serious concerns about the fairness of our system -- though I think focusing on these narrow questions rather than the systemic disadvantages faced by defendants is missing the big picture -- your claim at the top that anytime a prosecutor says a death penalty conviction is based on a lie a fair system would overturn it can't possibly be true.
Maybe we shouldn't have the death penalty but given we do the rule can't be that any prosecutor who doesn't like the death penalty can overturn all prior death verdicts by identifying the most minor obviously irrelevant false statements (there are always minor verbal slipups) and then asserting the conviction is based on a lie.
That's not what happened here but it proves that it's necessary to have some judicial process to determine if it really is totally obviously trivial or if it's not. And once you admit that you need some kind of analysis like what's happening here.
--
Look, my personal feeling is that the real issue is the absurdly lax rules applied to the government for turning over material. And I hate the way judges so easily decide after the fact some information wasn't material. But that should be a general change not some specific death penalty only exception.
Your entire second paragraph is your reading into what I wrote things that aren’t there, so, I’m not really going to address this. (And, I’m not sure I have any interest in a “can’t possibly be true” argument that then premises itself on things I didn’t write.)
Beyond all that, it’s a subhead — not the story. So, I’m truly just not here for a four-paragraph response to a five-second subhead — when there’s an 1,800-word story below it. (I do get that that’s on me, but, there’s honesty for you!)
But if you admit the court needs to evaluate the question of if being material I don't see anywhere in the rest of the piece where you explain why in this case the court should hold that this evidence was material contra the appeals ruling.
Or are you saying you aren't even trying to argue that the court should stop his death penalty?
But if you just meant to summarize not argue for an outcome then I misunderstood. But I usually assume the subhead reflects something like a thesis.
No, of course I’m not arguing that. Are you just a troll, because I don’t want to waste my time if so.
This is a report of the argument. There wasn’t a significant discussion of it, something I do mention in the piece, but I literally lead with Kagan’s comment — which addresses materiality. I also think the AG’s concession, if given proper due, would all but end that question.
I'm sorry I misunderstood you. Now that I know you intended it just as a summary it's clear but I read it assuming it was meant to support something like your subhead and sometimes people think something is obvious others don't so I don't think it was a crazy interpretation -- I've heard people argue something very much like "obviously it's material if even the prosecutor thinks so" in this case.
As for wasting your time, you've made it clear now how you understand subheads so I doubt this confusion will happen again..
This reminds me of something I wrote five years ago about "the profound flaw at the heart of our criminal justice system," which is:
"It equates justice with the process, not with truth or fairness or decency or even the accuracy of a criminal charge and sees nothing wrong with innocent people being imprisoned or even executed as long as they got 'a fair trial.' ... The system that claimed a bias in favor of the defendant at trial has [after conviction] a far stronger bias in favor of the prosecution."
Show corruption or malfeasance on the part of the prosecution, you can get a conviction overturned. But that only emphasizes the point: The system is willing to say "We *did* it wrong," but will actively resist having to say "We *got* it wrong."
Considering the number of trials that consider the death penalty have been found, in fact and beyond the assignment of the death penalty, that the defendant was actually falsely accused, too many Innocent people have already been put to death.
Fortunately the groups who eventually become aware of such cases have worked to free the innocents. The sad part is the number of years those people spend behind bars.
My question is if murder cases are fully and factually investigated before those decisions are made.
In my opinion, the Trees filing should not have been allowed because of the mental issue.
For any decision within the Justice System's placement of Justices by unjustified manipulation by characters like Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump, there is little reason left to hope that Justices will decide according to The Rule of Law.
“ If this all sounds like there’s a problem with the system, you’re right. In fact, the case highlights a number of overlapping problems with the death penalty and the broader criminal legal system”
I fully agree, however, as someone outside the legal profession I don’t see a problem or even overlapping problems, but rather ALL problems. Aside from a few well intentioned individuals, where in this morass of corruption, conflict of interest, junk science, cash buys wins, intentional cruelty, and near continuous violations of constitutional rights that is our failed American injustice system, do you see anything other than problems?!
I see no answers[positives] here and none in any of your previous writings. Perhaps there is some glimmer of hope you could provide for us lay people?
The roberts infirm court is certainly atrocious but that rot goes all the way down to local judges and the criminal collusion between politicians/prosecutors, and partisan police.
Thanks for this report Chris. Praying five justices rule in Glossip favor. Not sure Robert Roberson will be so lucky - and in his case there was no crime at all. Texas is going to murder him because his 2 year old daughter died of pneumonia and he’s autistic 😣
I have zero confidence in the integrity of this group of judges—I won’t call them justices because it dishonors the word—only because it’s not possible to measure my confidence with a negative number. I expect at least 4 of them will vote to let Glossip die. Maybe if he bought them an RV or an Alaska fishing trip it would be different.
Considering the number of trials that consider the death penalty have been found, in fact and beyond the assignment of the death penalty, that the defendant was actually falsely accused, too many Innocent people have already been put to death.
Fortunately the groups who eventually become aware of such cases have worked to free the innocents. The sad part is the number of years those people spend behind bars.
My question is if murder cases are fully and factually investigated before those decisions are made.
In my opinion, the Trees filing should not have been allowed because of the mental issue.
For any decision within the Justice System's placement of Justices by unjustified manipulation by characters like Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump, there is little reason left to hope that Justices will decide according to The Rule of Law.
I guessed he's white. Sad to say, I was right. Marcellus Williams wasn't so fortunate. A pox on the death penalty.
You’re certainly right about that — and it absolutely is relevant — although it’s not the only distinction. (I try very hard not to compare individual death cases against one another, since so many things go into reaching a result where someone is actually executed, which is why I didn’t want to draw that case into this report — because I don’t want to get bogged down in discussion of those differences. In sum: They’re both awful, though there are differences.)
peopel -> people
So I’m wondering why the prosecutor’s unsworn statement attached to an amicus brief in the Supreme Court and not earlier presented as a sworn statement to the trial court, should be given the time of day.
There were multiple comments to that effect.
This case reminds me of "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" scene where the benighted lad is trying to oust and sweep the water-bucket-carrying brigade of mops out the door.
If I have this right, both the original AG and the current AG, nearly 30 years apart, concede to errors in the original trial, that the prosecutors spoke to Sneed, who only mentioned his bi-polar diagnosis and treatment, but went no farther, and the prosecutors didn't turn that knowledge or notes of knowledge, of said mental diagnosis over to the defense, who knew nothing about the diagnosis nor did Glossip? I will admit to not reading the entire case, and its ensuing years of post-conviction actions, however, I will say that what I have read and what Roberts asked seems to be consistent with his attitude of obtuseness by asking if a witness lying, or perjuring, himself, would make a different jury outcome stunningly smug and not so stunningly recurrent. It gives me complete satisfaction the NY jury convicted correctly on Trump's election interference case with Cohen being the firestorm witness. If I read the Cannon hearing transcript and analysis, of Trump's hearing on Smith's appointment, correctly, it is usual for amicus briefs to be filed, especially at the SCOTUS level, but highly unusual for the actual amici curiae, to be invited to speak, at any hearing, but certainly so at the SCOTUS level and here we have that person invited by appointment by the court
itself, is that right, wrong, or both? Of course, as in Cannon's invitation, the amici curiae, was known by the defendent, Trump, and by two SCOTUS justices in this case. I truly don't believe, at any point, conflicts of interest are of concern any longer. Drummond had an "independent" review of the facts done while the amici curiae is not independent. I'm having flashbacks to Teresa Halbach's murder in WI where the family was so adamant about getting justice even if the facts state the justice they're getting is a falsehood they're willing to overlook. I followed that case and the ensuing removal of the county prosecutor closely as it was right up the road for me. Justice isn't served when you can't put your head down at night, unless you're, perhaps, one John Roberts, Alito or Thomas, knowing the outcome, has the kind of doubt that serves only to mitigate the suffering of the 10,047 days without a loved one at the expense of having that suffering continue as doubt will always be a pervading sense of conscience for "a pound of flesh". It would be for me as one with a conscience and also a practical sense of justice that attorneys, prosecutors, witnesses and judges aren't infallible. I have only made it down the road to a lengthy process of suing a circuit court judge, once my attorney, and with hindsight I can say I made so many mistakes as the plaintiff. If only...I appreciate you're writings and opinions on all these cases and as I follow along I can't agree with retired Judge Luttig, who I respect immensely, that the SCOTUS decision is final and the last say at the highest level of law in the land in these times. I'm glad Gorsuch recused himself as he should have in the 14th amendment case but certainly this one. Thomas and Alito have no right to have sat in judgment of cases where they are completely remiss of all standards of conflicts creating the need for recusal. Self arbiters they are not nor are the other two, Robert's and Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas and Roberts, in my humble opinion, are intimately familiar with false testimony but perhaps not perjury. Alito and Barrett are more the "I do not recall" types. Neither shows confidence in their ability and performances to the detriment of so so many. When another shooter is just another "mentally ill psycho" perhaps that will rattle the pillars of tyranny on today's conservative majority SCOTUS.
The amicus situation before Cannon and here are completely different. This is the way the Supreme Court regularly deals with cases when there is no one among the parties representing a particular, essential position in the case. It usually happens like once or twice a term.
And, while I’m not thrilled with the fact that it’s regularly former clerks who get the appointment, most SCOTUS advocates are former clerks, so it would be a little weird not to allow former clerks to be appointed amicus.
Got it. I didn’t know that. I try! Thank you for replying and I’ll continue to learn. Keeping up with all of this is hard for you, the professional, imagine my brain soup!
Interesting and provocative insight - - which is why I signed onto this site. Back in the day when Glossip was spared, I thought his case was a shoo-in for a NT. Now I don't know. Just another reason to get rid of this penal carbuncle on the face of US justice.
While I have serious concerns about the fairness of our system -- though I think focusing on these narrow questions rather than the systemic disadvantages faced by defendants is missing the big picture -- your claim at the top that anytime a prosecutor says a death penalty conviction is based on a lie a fair system would overturn it can't possibly be true.
Maybe we shouldn't have the death penalty but given we do the rule can't be that any prosecutor who doesn't like the death penalty can overturn all prior death verdicts by identifying the most minor obviously irrelevant false statements (there are always minor verbal slipups) and then asserting the conviction is based on a lie.
That's not what happened here but it proves that it's necessary to have some judicial process to determine if it really is totally obviously trivial or if it's not. And once you admit that you need some kind of analysis like what's happening here.
--
Look, my personal feeling is that the real issue is the absurdly lax rules applied to the government for turning over material. And I hate the way judges so easily decide after the fact some information wasn't material. But that should be a general change not some specific death penalty only exception.
Your entire second paragraph is your reading into what I wrote things that aren’t there, so, I’m not really going to address this. (And, I’m not sure I have any interest in a “can’t possibly be true” argument that then premises itself on things I didn’t write.)
Beyond all that, it’s a subhead — not the story. So, I’m truly just not here for a four-paragraph response to a five-second subhead — when there’s an 1,800-word story below it. (I do get that that’s on me, but, there’s honesty for you!)
But if you admit the court needs to evaluate the question of if being material I don't see anywhere in the rest of the piece where you explain why in this case the court should hold that this evidence was material contra the appeals ruling.
Or are you saying you aren't even trying to argue that the court should stop his death penalty?
But if you just meant to summarize not argue for an outcome then I misunderstood. But I usually assume the subhead reflects something like a thesis.
No, of course I’m not arguing that. Are you just a troll, because I don’t want to waste my time if so.
This is a report of the argument. There wasn’t a significant discussion of it, something I do mention in the piece, but I literally lead with Kagan’s comment — which addresses materiality. I also think the AG’s concession, if given proper due, would all but end that question.
I'm sorry I misunderstood you. Now that I know you intended it just as a summary it's clear but I read it assuming it was meant to support something like your subhead and sometimes people think something is obvious others don't so I don't think it was a crazy interpretation -- I've heard people argue something very much like "obviously it's material if even the prosecutor thinks so" in this case.
As for wasting your time, you've made it clear now how you understand subheads so I doubt this confusion will happen again..
This reminds me of something I wrote five years ago about "the profound flaw at the heart of our criminal justice system," which is:
"It equates justice with the process, not with truth or fairness or decency or even the accuracy of a criminal charge and sees nothing wrong with innocent people being imprisoned or even executed as long as they got 'a fair trial.' ... The system that claimed a bias in favor of the defendant at trial has [after conviction] a far stronger bias in favor of the prosecution."
Show corruption or malfeasance on the part of the prosecution, you can get a conviction overturned. But that only emphasizes the point: The system is willing to say "We *did* it wrong," but will actively resist having to say "We *got* it wrong."
FELICES THE GLOSSIP ENLA CORTE SUPREMA ARGUMENTS
FELICES GLOSSIP ARGUMENTS AT SCOTUS
Considering the number of trials that consider the death penalty have been found, in fact and beyond the assignment of the death penalty, that the defendant was actually falsely accused, too many Innocent people have already been put to death.
Fortunately the groups who eventually become aware of such cases have worked to free the innocents. The sad part is the number of years those people spend behind bars.
My question is if murder cases are fully and factually investigated before those decisions are made.
In my opinion, the Trees filing should not have been allowed because of the mental issue.
For any decision within the Justice System's placement of Justices by unjustified manipulation by characters like Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump, there is little reason left to hope that Justices will decide according to The Rule of Law.
“ If this all sounds like there’s a problem with the system, you’re right. In fact, the case highlights a number of overlapping problems with the death penalty and the broader criminal legal system”
I fully agree, however, as someone outside the legal profession I don’t see a problem or even overlapping problems, but rather ALL problems. Aside from a few well intentioned individuals, where in this morass of corruption, conflict of interest, junk science, cash buys wins, intentional cruelty, and near continuous violations of constitutional rights that is our failed American injustice system, do you see anything other than problems?!
I see no answers[positives] here and none in any of your previous writings. Perhaps there is some glimmer of hope you could provide for us lay people?
The roberts infirm court is certainly atrocious but that rot goes all the way down to local judges and the criminal collusion between politicians/prosecutors, and partisan police.
Thanks for this report Chris. Praying five justices rule in Glossip favor. Not sure Robert Roberson will be so lucky - and in his case there was no crime at all. Texas is going to murder him because his 2 year old daughter died of pneumonia and he’s autistic 😣
FELICES DE GLOSSIP EN LA CORTE SUPREMA SCOTUS
I have zero confidence in the integrity of this group of judges—I won’t call them justices because it dishonors the word—only because it’s not possible to measure my confidence with a negative number. I expect at least 4 of them will vote to let Glossip die. Maybe if he bought them an RV or an Alaska fishing trip it would be different.
Considering the number of trials that consider the death penalty have been found, in fact and beyond the assignment of the death penalty, that the defendant was actually falsely accused, too many Innocent people have already been put to death.
Fortunately the groups who eventually become aware of such cases have worked to free the innocents. The sad part is the number of years those people spend behind bars.
My question is if murder cases are fully and factually investigated before those decisions are made.
In my opinion, the Trees filing should not have been allowed because of the mental issue.
For any decision within the Justice System's placement of Justices by unjustified manipulation by characters like Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump, there is little reason left to hope that Justices will decide according to The Rule of Law.
Good summary!
Not a summary. A report of an argument. Thanks.
Argument report, not summary.