The Supreme Court grappled Wednesday with whether to give twice-convicted murderer Richard Glossip a new trial and save him from a death sentence in an unusual dispute in which even the state is asking the justices to order a third trial for the death row inmate.
Glossip and Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond argued to the justices that a new trial is warranted because the state’s key witness — Justin Sneed — was on lithium and suffered from mental illness.
They contend the defense did not have that information before trial, and it would go to the witness’s credibility.
Mr. Drummond says the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals — which upheld Glossip’s death sentence — can’t be the final word, calling on the justices to step in on behalf of the state and Glossip.
“When the state’s one indispensable witness had bipolar disorder and not a toothache or common cold, that fact is material and warrants a new trial,” said Paul D. Clement, an attorney arguing on behalf of Mr. Drummond. “Without his testimony, there is no way to get a conviction of murder, let alone the death penalty.”
Seth P. Waxman, the lawyer representing Glossip, told the court that the defense faced pushback when requesting the mental health records, saying it was labeled a “fishing expedition.”
“Richard Glossip was convicted on the word of one man,” he said.
Christopher G. Michel, the lawyer appointed by the high court to defend the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals decision to uphold the death sentence, said Glossip’s attorneys could have obtained the mental health records at the jail to find that Sneed had taken lithium.
“They’ve had that since 1997,” Mr. Michel said, urging the court to affirm the Oklahoma court’s reasoning.
The Supreme Court has put Glossip’s execution on hold as it weighs the case.
The justices appeared skeptical of the Oklahoma court’s decision to maintain the death penalty against Glossip, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying that the key witness’ mental health diagnosis “would have explained the murder.”
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh also stressed the importance of Sneed’s testimony.
“The whole case depended on his credibility,” Justice Kavanaugh said.
The legal battle comes decades after Barry Van Treese was found dead on Jan. 7, 1997, in an Oklahoma City hotel.
He was reportedly confronting the manager, Glossip, over concerns about embezzling money.
When Van Treese disappeared in 1997, Glossip did not take part in the search but sent authorities down the wrong path through false statements, court records contend.
Glossip allegedly hired Sneed to kill Van Treese. Sneed confessed to authorities, admitting he robbed Van Treese and beat him to death with a baseball bat after Glossip promised to pay him $10,000.
Sneed received a life sentence in exchange for his testimony and was the key witness against Glossip.
Glossip, who has always maintained his innocence, was convicted but was granted a second trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel. The second trial also rendered Glossip guilty, and he was sentenced to death.
The justices are considering whether Glossip’s rights were violated because the evidence wasn’t turned over and whether the Oklahoma court decision upholding the conviction and sentence, reached after the state’s position changed, should be allowed to stand.
They could affirm the Oklahoma court ruling, throw out the conviction, which would move Glossip off death row, or — as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested — order the Oklahoma courts to hold a new hearing on whether the prosecution suppressed the evidence.
Only eight justices are hearing the case and a 4-4 tie would let stand the Oklahoma court ruling. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch is not participating, presumably because he participated in it when he was an appeals court judge.
At least five justices voted last year to block efforts to execute Glossip while his case played out.
A decision is expected by June.
• This article is based in part on wire service reports.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.