Supreme Court hears joint attempt to save death row inmate

Both the plaintiffs and respondents remarkably joined in the court’s first case Wednesday morning, asking the justices to spare the life of a man on death row. Evidence that emerged last year prompted Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond to ask the Supreme Court to halt the execution of Richard Glossip and send his case back to district court. In twin briefs, the lawyers representing the state and the defendant asked the justices to hear the case. Half a dozen other states have filed briefs weighing in on the case.

In oral arguments Wednesday before the Supreme Court, the attorneys criticized the court proceedings that led to Glossip’s two convictions, in 1998 and 2001, for allegedly paying someone to murder his boss.

So if both sides agreed, what was the dispute? Both sides wanted the court to decide whether the due process clause in the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments required a retrial when both parties agreed that prosecutors may have illegally obtained a defendant’s conviction. The justices fought with attorneys of both entities for nearly two hours about whether or not the newly uncovered evidence really could yield a different result in another trial.

An Oklahoma appeals court ordered a retrial following Glossip’s 1998 conviction after finding the prosecution suppressed important evidence. But the prosecution again suppressed important evidence in the retrial and a jury again convicted Glossip just a few years later. Glossip then faced several execution dates that authorities postponed following his second conviction.

Eventually, an independent investigation showed that the prosecutors in Glossip’s trial tampered with the primary witness against him and suppressed information that would have otherwise required a retrial. That independent report, released in 2023, also found that prosecutors chose not to correct false information that made it onto the record.

Following that report, the State of Oklahoma agreed that Glossip should not be executed. State officials also demanded he receive a new trial. But an Oklahoma appeals court disagreed, saying that his execution should proceed as planned. The appeals court found that Supreme Court precedent didn’t provide an avenue for Glossip to receive yet another trial based on evidentiary issues. Both Glossip’s attorneys and Oklahoma officials appealed to the Supreme Court to postpone Glossip’s execution and give him a retrial.

Dig deeper: Read Jordan J. Ballor’s column in WORLD Opinions about how left-leaning politicians have plans to remake the U.S. Supreme Court.