The Supreme Court is considering the case of death row inmate Richard Glossip, who was convicted of murder in 1997 primarily based on the testimony of witness Justin Sneed. Sneed has since been revealed as a liar, raising questions about the validity of Glossip’s conviction. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond has supported Glossip’s appeal, arguing that prosecutors withheld crucial information about Sneed and his mental health condition. Despite this, an Oklahoma appeals court upheld Glossip’s death sentence. The Supreme Court justices seemed inclined to rule in Glossip’s favor, with Justice Clarence Thomas being the most hesitant. The court previously intervened in Glossip’s case to prevent his execution, and there is now a debate over whether the conviction should be overturned based on the new information. Several states have urged the Supreme Court to uphold the Oklahoma court ruling, arguing that the case falls under state law. Justice Neil Gorsuch has recused himself from the case, and there is a possibility of a 4-4 split decision, which would leave the state court ruling against Glossip in place. Glossip’s case highlights the complex and contentious nature of death penalty appeals, particularly when key witnesses are found to have lied in court.
Photo credit
www.nbcnews.com
