OKLAHOMA CITY — The Death Penalty Information Center reported that Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond is seeking another first-degree murder charge against Richard Glossip, despite previously agreeing to release the accused from prison after two decades on death row.
At the time, according to the center’s report, the agreement would have given the accused a 45-year sentence, reduced by credit for time served and good behavior.
According to the report, the accused was charged and convicted in a murder-for-hire scheme against Barry Van Treese, his boss at an Oklahoma City motel. Justin Sneed, a coworker of the accused, testified that Glossip had allegedly paid him to commit the murder and helped cover up the killing.
The accused has maintained his innocence, and the defense argued that the prosecution failed to disclose Sneed’s mental health conditions during the trial—information that would have damaged the credibility of his testimony.
The report revealed an email thread between Drummond and Glossip’s attorney, Don Knight, in which they agreed on a plea deal. The accused had a pending motion to overturn his conviction, and once the sentence was vacated, the state would file a single charge of being an accessory after the fact.
However, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals denied the accused’s motion to overturn the conviction. The attorney general took the unusual step of supporting that motion and later asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.
In February 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the accused and ordered a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct.
Another report from the center stated the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the prosecution’s suppression of information about Sneed’s plea deal violated the accused’s due process rights. The Court dismissed Glossip’s conviction and ordered a new trial.
The center noted that prosecutors were aware Sneed had lied during the trial in exchange for avoiding the death penalty.
Despite the previous agreement, Drummond decided to pursue a first-degree murder charge again. The defense argued the earlier agreement was binding and that the prosecution had refused to fulfill its end of the bargain.
The attorney general’s office filed a motion contending that no final agreement had been reached and that any proposed deal was contingent on the appellate court granting relief—which it did not.
