WASHINGTON, USA — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, February 25, 2025, ordered a new trial for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, marking a stunning legal turn in a case that has drawn national attention, including support from the state’s conservative attorney general.
The court’s ruling overturned Glossip’s conviction, citing constitutional violations after state prosecutors allegedly withheld critical evidence related to their star witness’ credibility.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the 5-3 majority, stated:
“We conclude that the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony.”
A Case Shrouded in Controversy
Glossip, convicted in 1998 of orchestrating the murder of Barry Van Treese, has long maintained his innocence.
The state’s case relied almost entirely on the testimony of Justin Sneed, the admitted killer who claimed Glossip hired him to commit the crime.
However, recently uncovered notes revealed that prosecutors knew Sneed had a serious psychiatric condition, including treatment with lithium, but failed to disclose this information at trial.
“Had the prosecution corrected Sneed on the stand, his credibility plainly would have suffered,” Sotomayor wrote.
The court’s ruling is a major victory for Glossip. He has faced execution nine times, eaten his last meal three times before receiving last-minute reprieves, and spent over 25 years on death row.
A Divided Court, A Nationally Watched Case
The decision exposed a sharp ideological divide on the Supreme Court.
Justices in favour of a new trial included Sotomayor, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Brett Kavanaugh, and Elena Kagan.
Dissenting justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito argued that the ruling “imagines a constitutional violation where none occurred.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett took a middle ground, stating that she would have sent the case back to a lower court for further review.
During oral arguments in October, both conservative and liberal justices expressed skepticism over the state’s handling of evidence.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson observed, “It’s my understanding that there’s never been a court determination of any of these facts.”
Justice Samuel Alito, despite his dissent, acknowledged the prosecution’s notes on Sneed’s condition were ‘cryptic’.
Oklahoma’s Attorney General Supports New Trial
Adding to the case’s extraordinary nature, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a Republican, had also advocated for a new trial.
Drummond’s office hired former Solicitor General Paul Clement—one of the country’s top Supreme Court attorneys—to argue in favor of Glossip’s retrial.
Following the ruling, Drummond issued a statement, “I have long maintained that I do not believe Mr. Glossip is innocent, but it is now an undeniable fact that he did not receive a fair trial.”
Drummond said his office will review the Supreme Court’s ruling, consult with Van Treese’s family, and determine the next steps in the prosecution.
The Van Treese Family Responds
Barry Van Treese’s family reacted with disappointment but remained confident that a third conviction would be secured.
“For the last 10,276 days, we’ve been waiting for justice for the murder of Barry Van Treese,” said Derek Van Treese, Barry’s son.
The family urged the state to pursue the death penalty again, saying, “While it may be difficult to start fresh on a 28-year-old case, I urge the Attorney General and the Oklahoma County District Attorney’s office to demonstrate the same perseverance that our family has shown throughout this process.”
What’s Next for Glossip?
Glossip’s attorney, Don Knight, celebrated the ruling, “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.”
The state must now decide whether to retry Glossip, potentially seeking the death penalty again, offer a plea deal that could remove him from death row, or drop the charges entirely, which is a highly unlikely outcome.
The ruling is a landmark moment in death penalty jurisprudence, as prosecutorial misconduct and withheld evidence continue to be key issues in capital punishment cases nationwide.
