The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that Richard Grossip, a man who was declared to die under very suspicious circumstances, must go to a new trial. The case is Glossipv. Oklahoma.
Courts with six or three Republicans often aren't sympathetic to death row inmates trying to challenge their convictions or avoid executions. That's not likely Grossip The case foresees a break from this trend as Glossip has brought about an unusually strong case in the Supreme Court. In fact, his case is strong enough that the Republican Attorney General of Oklahoma, who was usually tasked with defending Grosship beliefs, instead claimed that Grosship trials were so flawed that they violated the constitution. .
In total, five Justice Judges John Roberts, along with Justice Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson vote to give Grossip a new trial. did. Judge Amy Connie Barrett agreed that Grosship's constitutional rights had been violated, but would have sent the case instead to the Oklahoma Court of Appeals. Justice Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito disagreed (Judge Neil Gorsuch was rejected).
Many powerful players within Oklahoma have raised serious doubts about Glossip's beliefs, and the state has produced two investigations that lay out many flaws in the case against Glossip. One investigation conducted by law firm Reed Smith on behalf of a group of dozens of state legislators has destroyed a wide range of errors, evidence and police failures have resulted in the “fundamental fairness and ultimate” We have decided to question credibility: a conviction for glossship for murder.”
The second investigation commissioned by State Attorney General Gentner Drummond found that “glossip has been deprived of a fair trial where the state can be confident in the process and outcome.”
There have been many mistakes in police investigations and glossip prosecutions (summary some of them here), but Judge Sotomayor's majority opinion Grossip I'm focusing only on one of them. Almost 20 years after Glossip's conviction, the state revealed that he had falsely testified at trial that he had never seen a psychiatrist. The prosecution never corrected the false testimony despite being aware of the witness's previous psychological treatment.
It violates the Supreme Court's decision Napuev. Illinois (1959) generally prohibits prosecutors from introducing false testimony, and usually requires that prosecutors modify such testimony when they arise.
The case for Glossip is very thin
In 1997, Justin Snead, a maintenance worker at a motel owned by Barry Van Trese, killed Van Trese with a baseball bat. At the time, Glossip was the manager of this motel.
Glossip is not completely innocent. According to his lawyer, Glossip “voluntarily spoke to police on the day of murder and admitted to taking action after being detained the following day and being killed by Van Trese. Initially, the state said it was Glossip. They claimed as an accessory after the fact, and helped to hide the murder and clean the murder scene. However, the charges were later upgraded to murder.
There are many reasons to doubt the upgraded fee. At Glossip's trial, the state's theory was that Glossip masterminded the murder and hired Sneed to do it. However, there is important evidence that police forces Snead to rail on rail to support this theory. Reed Smith's report, for example, discovered that Snead had involved glossship in the murder itself, “only afterwards.” [lead] Detective [Robert] Bemo disrupted the view that Snead did not act alone, that Snead could help himself, that Grossip was arrested and that Grossip blamed Snead for the murder. ”
Sneed testified against Glossip at his 2004 trial, and this testimony was the only direct evidence linking Glossip to murder. The states that supported Glossip's new trial call have described Sneed as “essential witness.”
However, Snead was also a much more flawed witness than the prosecutor allowed the ju judge to believe. At the trial, Snead falsely testified, “I've never seen any psychiatrist or anything.” He had been prescribed lithium, a drug used to treat several mental illnesses, but while he was in prison for the murder of Van Toryse, Snead said this was a mistake, and he said he was wrong. suggested that she simply asked Sudafe to treat her cold.
However, in 2023, the state turned the documents over to Grosship's attorneys, damaging Snead's testimony and suggesting that prosecutors knew Snead was lying at Grosship's murder trial. The document includes a page of handwritten notes by Chief Prosecutor Connie Smothermon, including a notation that indicated that Smothermon knew that Snead was “on lithium” and a “reference to the doctor.” I did. trumpet. “
“Dr. Trumpet” turns out to be Dr. Larry Tronka, a prison psychiatrist, while Snead was incarcerated at the facility. Trombka prescribed lithium to treat Sneed's bipolar disorder. And he may have later experienced an “episode of Man's disease,” which could have led him to “become more paranoid or potentially violent,” and Snead's The condition was “immunized by illegal drug use such as methamphetamine.” ”
If Glossip's lawyers were known about Sneed's diagnosis and treatment at the 2004 trial, they could have used it to cover Sneed's testimony in several ways. First of all, the mere fact that Snead falsely testified about his own medical history may have undermined his credibility and led the ju judge to doubt the essential witness of the state.
Furthermore, if the defense attorneys knew about Sneed's mental health diagnosis, they might have raised questions about the state's theory of murder. Instead, Sneed claimed he committed murder as a voluntary act brought about by the Manic episode and his drug use.
As Sotomayor explains in the court Grossip opinion, Napuye A decision is very advantageous for someone like Glossip, who was convicted on false testimony that the prosecutor might have been able to correct it. Napuye They ask for a conviction, “as long as false testimony may have influenced the outcome of the trial” and “as long as false testimony is present.” ”
The later Supreme Court decision states that “convictions obtained through the use of false testimony will be aside if there is a reasonable possibility that false testimony could affect the verdict of the ju court. “It must be put,” and suggests that they can overcome this rule,” the prosecutor said, “proving beyond reasonable doubt that the error sued did not contribute to the obtained verdict. You can do it.”
In other words, Sotomayor's opinion simply followed their logical conclusions on these established precedents. Knowing that Sneed's testimony is false, there is a reasonable possibility that the ju judge acquitted Glossip. And that is enough to give him a new trial.
