Glossip v. Oklahoma
Creators: name: Ward, John
Publisher: name: American University
Year: 2024

description: On the morning of January 7, 1997, police found Barry Van Treese, owner of the Best Budget Inn, brutally bludgeoned to death in Room 102. Justin Sneed, the motel’s maintenance man, confessed to the murder. He claimed the manager, Richard Glossip, had paid him to do it. Glossip denied the accusation, insisted on his innocence, and refused plea deals. Despite the lack of physical evidence, an Oklahoma jury convicted him in 1998, based almost solely on Sneed’s testimony [1]. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals later overturned the conviction, pointing out Glossip had received ineffective counsel, but in a 2004 retrial, he was again sentenced to death [2].<br>To this day, Glossip and his counsel contest the ruling, and the case remains publicly controversial due to police misconduct, lack of physical evidence, and reliance on a single witness with a plea deal. In May 2023, the Supreme Court halted Glossip's execution and accepted the case for its 2024 docket [3]. <br>Glossip vs. Oklahoma revolves around the requirements for sentencing someone to the death penalty and the reliability needed from witness testimony. The prosecution relied almost entirely on the testimony of one man, Justin Sneed. All of this is despite his role as the actual perpetrator and the fact he implicated Glossip as a part of a plea deal to avoid the death penalty himself [4]. Glossip argues that without supportive physical evidence, the state cannot justify convicting him of murder, much less meet the standard for the death penalty.<br>This isn’t the only aspect of the defense's argument. Glossip also claims he received ineffective assistance from counsel. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found this to be the case in his original trial, but Glossip also holds this true for his retrial. In both cases, Glossip's defense failed to investigate key evidence and witnesses. At the retrial, the defense did not meaningfully challenge Justin Sneed’s testimony or call-in forensic experts. <br>Another fact the defense didn’t properly address was the destruction of evidence. In 1998, the police marked a box of evidence to be destroyed without notifying Glossip's legal team. Glossip holds that this misconduct from the police, the defense team, and the quality of evidence do not meet the criteria for conviction and are violations of due process. Oklahoma claims that Sneed's testimony is reliable, and Glossip was independently convicted by two different juries. <br>As the Supreme Court takes on Glossip v. Oklahoma, it will change the standards of evidence in capital punishment cases. With no physical evidence and a conviction resting on the testimony of a co-conspirator with a plea deal, this case questions whether current standards meet the high bar required for the death penalty. If the Court sides with Glossip, it could redefine the threshold of reliability needed in death penalty cases, challenging the heavy reliance on witness testimony and potentially reshaping how capital punishment is applied in the future. <br><b>Sources:</b>Jordann Lucero, Timeline of events in Richard Glossip's case, OKC Fox (Sept. 28th, 2015), https://okcfox.com/news/local/timeline-of-events-in-richard-glossips-caseGlossip v. State, 29 P.3d, 597 (2001)Amy Howe, Supreme Court to Decide if Oklahoma Must Execute Richard Glossip, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 5, 2024), https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/10/supreme-court-to-decide-if-oklahoma-must-execute-richard-glossip/Brief for Petitioner, Glossip v. Oklahoma, No. 22-7466 (U.S. Apr. 29, 2024)