US Supreme Court grants Oklahoma death row inmate Glossip new trial

By John Kruzel

WASHINGTON, Feb 25 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday in favor of Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip in his bid to challenge his conviction for a 1997 murder-for-hire plot and granted him a new trial.

The justices reversed a lower court's decision that had upheld Glossip's conviction and had allowed his planned execution to move forward despite his claim that prosecutors wrongly withheld evidence that could help his defense.

During Oct. 9 arguments in the case, the justices probed whether an Oklahoma court properly weighed newly revealed information that Glossip's lawyers said would have aided his defense and which the state's Republican attorney general, Gentner Drummond, called wrongly withheld by prosecutors. Drummond, a Republican, supported Glossip's appeal.

Glossip's lawyers asked the justices to throw out his conviction and grant him a new trial after the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld his death sentence despite potentially exculpatory evidence being found in an independent investigation ordered last year by Drummond.

Glossip was convicted of commissioning the murder of Barry Van Treese, owner of the Best Budget Inn motel in Oklahoma City where Glossip was a manager. All parties agree Van Treese was fatally beaten with a baseball bat by maintenance worker Justin Sneed. Sneed confessed to the murder but avoided capital punishment by accepting a plea deal that involved testifying that Glossip paid him $10,000 to do it.

Securing a murder conviction against Glossip hinged on the testimony of Sneed, who was a methamphetamine addict. Glossip admitted to helping Sneed cover up the murder after it occurred, but denied knowing Sneed planned to kill Van Treese or encouraging him to do so.

The Supreme Court in 2023 halted Glossip's scheduled execution while his appeal proceeded.

The evidence disclosed in 2023 by Drummond - including a prosecutor's hand-written notes from a meeting with Sneed - cast doubt on Sneed's credibility, according to Glossip's lawyers.

They argued that they were kept in the dark about Sneed receiving psychiatric treatment for bipolar disorder immediately after his arrest, and that prosecutors failed to correct Sneed's false statement about his prescription for the medication lithium.

Because Oklahoma's attorney general is supporting Glossip's appeal, the Supreme Court tapped an outside lawyer, private attorney Christopher Michel, to argue to uphold Glossip's conviction.

Drummond became an unlikely ally of Glossip after the investigation he commissioned led him to conclude prosecutors hid evidence that might have led to an acquittal. Although Drummond said he believes Glossip's role in covering up Van Treese's murder makes him at least an "accessory after the fact," justifying a long prison sentence, Glossip's murder conviction was too flawed for him to defend.

The victim's family, represented by former federal judge Paul Cassell, filed a brief with the Supreme Court saying, "The truth here is that no evidence was suppressed and Glossip commissioned the murder of Barry Van Treese."

Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in considering Glossip's appeal, apparently because he earlier dealt with the case while serving on a lower court.