OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Richard Glossip has spent 27 years behind bars, most of it on Oklahoma’s death row, coming close enough to execution that he has had nine separate execution dates and been fed three “last meals.”
On Tuesday, Glossip, now 62, won a new trial in a stunning U.S. Supreme Court decision that tossed his murder conviction and death sentence for the 1997 killing of his former boss, motel owner Barry Van Treese, in what prosecutors have alleged was a murder-for-hire scheme.
Glossip has always maintained his innocence. Another man, Justin Sneed, admitted robbing Van Treese and beating him to death with a baseball bat, but testified that he did so after Glossip promised to pay him $10,000. Sneed was the state’s key witness against Glossip and was sentenced to life in prison.
Here are some things to know about the case:
What did the Supreme Court say?
In its majority opinion, the Supreme Court determined that prosecutors failed to correct testimony they knew to be false from Sneed and that Sneed lied on the witness stand about his psychiatric condition and his reason for taking the mood-stabilizing drug lithium.
“Correcting Sneed’s lie would have undermined his credibility and revealed his willingness to lie under oath,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for five of the justices.
Sotomayor said additional prosecutorial misconduct, including interfering with Sneed’s testimony, destroying evidence and withholding witness statements, further undermined confidence in the verdict.
What happens to Glossip now?
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who had taken the unusual step of asking the high court for a new trial, said Tuesday he will request that Glossip remain in prison until prosecutors decide whether to retry him. He said he expects a decision in the coming months.
Drummond, a Republican, said he plans to consult Oklahoma County District Attorney Vicki Behenna, a Democrat, about whether to try Glossip again and whether to seek the death penalty, a lesser penalty of life in prison, or pursue lesser charges, like accessory to murder after the fact.
“I do not believe Richard Glossip is innocent,” Drummond added, acknowledging that it would be difficult to try him again given the amount of time that has passed since the killing.
Behenna has previously said she would not consider the death penalty in the case, and Drummond agreed Tuesday that while certain murder-for-hire cases can qualify for the death penalty, he doesn’t believe the facts in Glossip’s case justify that penalty.
“We need to look back on the evidence and see what evidence we have that we can actually go forward on, what witness recollection there is, to make a determination,” Drummond said.
Glossip nearly receives lethal injection
Glossip has had nine separate execution dates scheduled and has nearly been executed several times. In 2015, he was being held in a cell next to Oklahoma’s execution chamber, waiting to be strapped to a gurney and injected with drugs that would kill him.
But the scheduled time for his execution came and went, and behind the walls of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, prison officials were scrambling after learning one of the lethal drugs they received to carry out the procedure didn’t match the execution protocols.
The drug mix-up, which closely followed a botched execution in 2014, ultimately led to a nearly seven-year moratorium on executions in Oklahoma.
What about the victim’s family?
A message left Tuesday with Van Treese’s brother, Ken Van Treese, was not immediately returned, but several members of Van Treese’s family have long said that Glossip should die for his role in the killing.
“I have conferred with several members of the Van Treese family and given them my heartfelt sadness for where they are, where they find themselves,” Drummond said.
An attorney for the family wrote in a brief to the high court last year that they want to see Glossip’s conviction and sentence upheld.
“In this case, the Van Treese family has waited patiently for justice for 10,047 days,” lawyer Paul Cassell, a former federal judge, wrote on behalf of the family. “And yet, they are now witnessing the spectacle of their case being stalled by the Attorney General for their home state confessing an error where none exists.”
