In a high-profile 5-3 decision on February 25, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Richard Glossip, sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese, is entitled to a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct that violated his constitutional rights.
The Court found that the prosecution’s failure to correct false testimony from the state’s key witness, Justin Sneed, undermined the integrity of the conviction and warranted a fresh trial. This decision highlights the critical importance of ensuring that capital cases are based on truthful evidence and fair procedures.
Glossip was convicted and sentenced to death, based primarily on the testimony of Justin Sneed, the actual perpetrator of the crime, who claimed that Glossip had hired him to commit the murder.
However, new evidence, including documents withheld by the prosecution, led to the argument that Glossip’s conviction was compromised by prosecutorial misconduct, including the failure to correct false testimony provided by Sneed.
“We are thankful that a clear majority of the Court supports long-standing precedent that prosecutors cannot hide critical evidence from defense lawyers and cannot stand by while their witnesses knowingly lie to the jury,” said Don Knight, attorney for Richard Glossip. “Today was a victory for justice and fairness in our judicial system. Rich Glossip, who has maintained his innocence for 27 years, will now be given the chance to have the fair trial that he has always been denied.”
Richard Glossip has been on Oklahoma’s death row for 26 years even though it is undisputed that another man, Justin Sneed, murdered Barry Van Treese.
The State of Oklahoma agrees that Glossip did not receive a fair trial, and his conviction must be reversed. Oklahoma supported Glossip’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court and joined Glossip as “Respondent in Support of Petitioner,” informing the Court that Glossip’s capital conviction was so riddled with errors that the State no longer wanted to defend it. The State’s confession of error was based on evidence previously and wrongfully withheld from Glossip showing that Sneed, the person who committed the murder and was the star witness for the prosecution, lied on the stand and wanted to recant his false testimony.
Attorneys for Glossip noted, “Oklahoma’s concession of error is historically unprecedented. What is also unprecedented is the outpouring of support for Mr. Glossip from 62 Oklahoma legislators, including at least 45 Republican lawmakers who support the death penalty.”
According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, Glossip’s case presents two key legal issues: whether the prosecution violated Glossip’s constitutional rights by failing to correct false testimony, and whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) applied the wrong legal standard in denying post-conviction relief.
In 1997, Justin Sneed murdered Barry Van Treese, who owned and managed a hotel in Oklahoma. Sneed claimed that Glossip, the hotel manager, had hired him to kill Van Treese in a scheme to take over the business. Despite Sneed’s admissions, there was no direct evidence linking Glossip to the murder except for Sneed’s testimony. Sneed’s story was crucial to the prosecution’s case, and the jury convicted Glossip based on his account.
In the years following the conviction, questions arose about the integrity of the case. Notably, a bipartisan group of Oklahoma lawmakers commissioned an independent investigation, which uncovered disturbing revelations, including withheld documents, evidence of Sneed’s mental health issues, and the prosecution’s failure to correct false testimony from Sneed about his psychiatric treatment.
The critical issue at hand was that Sneed had falsely testified that he had never seen a psychiatrist and that he was prescribed lithium only for a cold. However, evidence later revealed that Sneed had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and prescribed lithium to treat it. The prosecution knew about these facts but did not correct Sneed’s false testimony, violating Glossip’s right to a fair trial under the Due Process Clause.
Rev. Don Heath, OK-CADP Chair, added in a statement, “This is wonderful news! The US Supreme Court is still capable of doing the right thing. Congratulations to Richard and Lea Glossip. Hopefully their suffering is at an end. Congratulations to Glossip’s legal team for this amazing result.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling focused on whether the prosecution’s failure to correct Sneed’s false testimony violated Glossip’s due process rights under the precedent set by Napue v. Illinois (1959). In Napue, the Court held that a conviction obtained through false testimony violates the Fourteenth Amendment if the prosecution knowingly allows false testimony to go uncorrected.
Justice Sotomayor, writing for the majority, emphasized that Napue requires the prosecution to correct false testimony when it is known to be false. In this case, the Court found that Sneed’s testimony about his lithium prescription was false, and the prosecution had failed to correct it. The Court noted that the prosecution had access to Sneed’s medical records and knew he had been prescribed lithium for bipolar disorder, not for a cold as Sneed testified. The Court further concluded that the false testimony was material because Sneed’s credibility was central to the prosecution’s case. A correction would have undermined Sneed’s reliability as a witness and could have affected the jury’s verdict.
The Court also held that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had misapplied Napue. The OCCA had ruled that Sneed’s testimony was not clearly false because he might have been in denial about his mental health. However, the Supreme Court explained that the issue was not whether Sneed believed his testimony but whether the prosecution allowed him to lie under oath without correction. As the Court stated, “A lie is a lie, no matter what its subject,” and the failure to correct such lies violates due process.
In addition to the false testimony issue, the Court addressed prosecutorial misconduct, including the destruction of evidence and interference with witness testimony. The State had withheld important documents, and the prosecution had failed to disclose Sneed’s inconsistent statements about the crime. The Court found that these violations further undermined confidence in the fairness of the trial.
The majority criticized the OCCA’s conclusion that Sneed’s false testimony did not warrant a new trial. The OCCA had argued that the defense could have and should have discovered Sneed’s psychiatric history, and thus, the prosecution’s failure to correct the testimony was not material. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that it was the prosecution’s responsibility, not the defense’s, to correct false testimony. The Court further stated that the OCCA’s decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of Napue, which holds that even if the defense is aware of the falsehood, the prosecution still has an obligation to correct it.
The Court also rejected the OCCA’s claim that Sneed’s testimony was not false in the relevant legal sense. The OCCA had suggested that Sneed’s denial of his mental health history was the result of denial rather than a deliberate falsehood. The Supreme Court clarified that it does not matter whether Sneed was in denial—what mattered was that his testimony was factually incorrect and the prosecution failed to correct it.
The Court reversed the OCCA’s decision and remanded the case for a new trial, finding that Glossip’s constitutional rights had been violated. Justice Sotomayor emphasized the importance of ensuring fairness in capital cases, especially when a conviction hinges on the credibility of a single witness. The Court’s decision underscores the critical role of prosecutorial duty in correcting false testimony and the need to protect the integrity of the judicial process.
Justice Barrett, in her partial concurrence and dissent, agreed with much of the Court’s analysis but disagreed with the remedy. She argued that the Court should have remanded the case to the OCCA for further proceedings rather than issuing a direct ruling on the factual findings. Justice Thomas, in a dissenting opinion, also disagreed, arguing that the OCCA’s application of state procedural rules should have been respected, and further factual inquiry was needed.
This is a breaking story…
