Glossip v. Oklahoma

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Glossip v. Oklahoma
Term: 2024
Important Dates
Argued: October 9, 2024
Decided: February 25, 2025
Outcome
reversed and remanded
Vote
5-3
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Brett Kavanaugh • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Concurring
Amy Coney Barrett (as to Part II)
Dissenting
Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Amy Coney Barrett (in part)

Glossip v. Oklahoma is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 25, 2025, during the court's October 2024-2025 term. The case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on October 9, 2024.

In a 5-3 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, holding that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The court also held that the prosecution violated its constitutional duty to correct false testimony under Napue v. Illinois. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned the Due process clause. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "1. a. Whether the State's suppression of the key prosecution witness's admission he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness's false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Napue v. Illinois (1959). b. Whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims. See Kyles v. Whitley (1995).
    2. Whether due process of law requires reversal, where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the State no longer seeks to defend it. See Escobar v. Texas (2023).
    IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE OKLAHOMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS' HOLDING THAT THE OKLAHOMA POSTCONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT PRECLUDED POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AN ADEQUATE AND INDEPENDENT STATE-LAW GROUND FOR THE JUDGMENT. JUSTICE GORSUCH TOOK NO PART."[2]
  • The outcome: In a 5-3 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[3]

    • Petitioner: Richard Eugene Glossip
      • Legal counsel: Seth P. Waxman (Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP)
    • Respondent: Oklahoma
      • Legal counsel: Paul D. Clement (Clement & Murphy, PLLC)

    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez, a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and the Chicago-Kent College of Law:[4]

    “

    Richard Glossip was sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese, the owner of the Oklahoma City motel where Glossip worked as a manager. Critical to Glossip’s conviction was testimony from Justin Sneed, a handyman at the hotel, who told jurors that Glossip paid him $10,000 to kill Van Treese. After Glossip’s conviction, he received information that Sneed had testified falsely about his mental health and whether he had seen a psychiatrist. Glossip asked the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to set aside his conviction, but the court rejected that request, and the state’s Pardon and Parole Board turned down Glossip’s request for clemency.

    All told, Glossip has spent 26 years behind bars, faced nine execution dates, and had multiple independent investigations that raised serious doubts about his conviction. Ahead of his execution date of May 18, 2023, Glossip asked the Supreme Court to stay his execution and consider whether Oklahoma violated Glossip’s constitutional rights when prosecutors suppressed evidence that their key witness was under a psychiatrist’s care; the Court granted his motion to stay and granted his petition, as well.[5]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    • February 25, 2025: In a 5-3 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
    • October 9, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • January 22, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • May 4, 2023: Richard Eugene Glossip appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • April 20, 2023: The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals denied Glossip's application for post-conviction relief and his joint application for a stay of execution.


    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ 1. a. Whether the State's suppression of the key prosecution witness's admission he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness's false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Napue v. Illinois (1959). b. Whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims. See Kyles v. Whitley (1995).
    2. Whether due process of law requires reversal, where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the State no longer seeks to defend it. See Escobar v. Texas (2023).
    IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE OKLAHOMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS' HOLDING THAT THE OKLAHOMA POSTCONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT PRECLUDED POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AN ADEQUATE AND INDEPENDENT STATE-LAW GROUND FOR THE JUDGMENT. JUSTICE GORSUCH TOOK NO PART.[5]     		”

    Oral argument

    The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 9, 2024.

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[6]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[7]

    Outcome

    In a 5-3 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, holding that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The court also held that the prosecution violated its constitutional duty to correct false testimony under Napue v. Illinois. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the court. Justice Neil Gorsuch took no part in the decision of the case.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote:t.[1]

    “

    Turning to the merits, we conclude that the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony.

    In Napue v. Illinois, this Court held that a conviction knowingly ‘obtained through use of false evidence’ violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. 360 U. S., at 269. To establish a Napue violation, a defendant must show that the prosecution knowingly solicited false testimony or knowingly allowed it ‘to go uncorrected when it appear[ed].’ Ibid. If the defendant makes that showing, a new trial is warranted so long as the false testimony ‘may have had an effect on the outcome of the trial,’ id., at 272— that is, if it ‘in any reasonable likelihood [could] have affected the judgment of the jury,’ Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150, 154 (1972) (quoting Napue, 360 U. S., at 271). In effect, this materiality standard requires ‘the beneficiary of [the] constitutional error to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667, 680, n. 9 (1985) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 24 (1967)). [5]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

    In her concurring opinion, Justice Barrett wrote:[1]

    “

    While I agree with much of the Court’s analysis, I would not order the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) to set aside Richard Glossip’s conviction. The OCCA did not make factual findings on the most important questions, and the record is open to multiple plausible interpretations. Consistent with our ordinary practice, the Court should have corrected the OCCA’s misstatement of Napue v. Illinois and remanded this case for further proceedings. 360 U. S. 264 (1959). Instead, the Court has drawn its own conclusions about what the record shows, thereby exceeding its role.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Amy Coney Barrett

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett as to Parts IV-A-1, IV-A-2, and IV-A-3.

    In his dissent, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]

    “

    Richard Glossip—a convicted murderer twice sentenced to death by Oklahoma juries—challenges the denial of his fifth application for state post-conviction relief. Although Glossip won the support of Oklahoma’s new attorney general, he failed to persuade either body with authority to grant him relief: The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) denied Glossip’s application as both procedurally deficient and nonmeritorious, and Oklahoma’s Pardon and Parole Board denied clemency. Because this Court lacks the power to override these denials, that should have marked the end of the road for Glossip. Instead, the Court stretches the law at every turn to rule in his favor. At the threshold, it concocts federal jurisdiction by misreading the decision below. On the merits, it finds a due process violation based on patently immaterial testimony about a witness’s medical condition. And, for the remedy, it orders a new trial in violation of black-letter law on this Court’s power to review state-court judgments. I respectfully dissent.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2024-2025

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 7, 2024. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[8]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 U.S. Supreme Court, "Glossip v. Oklahoma," February 25, 2025
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "22-7466 GLOSSIP V. OKLAHOMA," January 22, 2024
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "22-7466," accessed January 22, 2024
    4. ↑ Oyez, "Glossip v. Oklahoma," accessed August 22, 2024
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued October 9, 2024
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued October 9, 2024
    8. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Glossip_v._Oklahoma&oldid=10262196"