Richard Glossip was convicted and sentenced to death first in 1998, then a second time in 2004. He was scheduled to be executed in 2014. Now, his lawyers are preparing to present the death row inmate’s case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Glossip case has drawn national attention because Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond—who wasn’t in office when Mr. Glossip was convicted—has publicly opposed Mr. Glossip’s execution based on his belief that Mr. Glossip didn’t get a fair trial.
In January, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, which means that it will review the lower court’s judgment and render a decision on whether to uphold it or overturn it.
Mr. Glossip’s lawyer, Don Knight, of Littleton, Colorado, told The Epoch Times that he expects the court to hear the case during its next term, which begins in October.
“Richard Glossip’s innocence is unlike anything the country has ever seen,” Mr. Knight said in a Jan. 22 statement.
“The Oklahoma Attorney Generals’ concession of error is historically unprecedented, as is the outpouring of support from 62 Oklahoma legislators, including at least 45 death penalty-supporting Republican lawmakers.”
Not everyone shares that opinion, however.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals issued an opinion on April 20, 2023, stating that after two trials, five appeals, and two reprieves, Mr. Glossip had exhausted his legal options under Oklahoma’s Post-Conviction Procedure Act.
“Glossip is neither entitled to post-conviction relief nor a stay of execution,” the appeals court decision reads.
The Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board denied Mr. Glossip clemency on April 26, 2023.
The crime occurred in January 1997.
Barry Van Treese, owner of the Best Budget Inn motel in Oklahoma City, was beaten to death with a baseball bat by Justin Sneed, a 19-year-old drug addict with mental health issues, according to court records.
Mr. Sneed, the motel’s maintenance man, initially told police that Mr. Glossip, the motel manager, hired him to kill Mr. Van Treese.
Mr. Sneed is serving a life sentence for the murder.
Mr. Glossip was convicted in July 1998 of arranging the killing and was sentenced to death. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed his conviction in 2001 based on ineffective counsel. Mr. Glossip was retried, convicted, and sentenced to death a second time in 2004.
Mr. Glossip’s first execution date was in 2014. At that time, Oklahoma officials had put executions on hold because of problems with the drugs used in lethal injections.
This was prompted by the flawed execution of Clayton Lockett on April 29, 2014. Mr. Lockett reportedly awoke after receiving the drug midazolam, which was supposed to render him unconscious before the fatal drugs were administered. It took him 43 minutes to die, during which time he struggled on the gurney and spoke to those present.
Mr. Glossip was granted other reprieves as witnesses came forward with claims that he was not involved in the murder. At least two people who served time with Mr. Sneed said he admitted to the killing and said that Mr. Glossip wasn’t involved.
Because Oklahoma’s attorney general sided with Mr. Glossip, the Supreme Court appointed Washington-based lawyer Christopher Michel to present the state’s case.
The Supreme Court justices instructed attorneys to address Oklahoma’s Post-Conviction Procedure Act, which has been a factor in Mr. Glossip’s case. The law sets time limits and evidence standards for appellants who believe their appeals have been wrongly denied.
The victim’s family has also requested permission to address the court. At the clemency hearing, Mr. Van Treese’s son, Derek Van Treese, said his family wants the legal ordeal to end.
“I’ve spent over half my life waiting for justice to be served to those responsible,” Derek Van Treese said.
Mr. Knight said an attorney in Mr. Drummond’s office is expected to appear before the Supreme Court to argue that Mr. Glossip doesn’t belong on death row.
Mr. Drummond’s office did not respond to an email seeking comment for this story.
“I do not believe that the evidence presents that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that is my concern,” Mr. Drummond told the board. “We are here to see that justice is done.”
Republican state Rep. Kevin McDugle agrees. He told The Epoch Times that he was initially skeptical of the claims made by Mr. Glossip’s supporters, including those of Justin Jackson, a Clayton, Oklahoma, businessman who first alerted him to the case.
In June 2021, Mr. McDugle gathered an ad hoc committee of 34 Oklahoma legislators from both parties to appoint an independent counsel to investigate Mr. Glossip’s case. He said the group had only one objective.
“If he’s guilty, I want to know it. I want [investigators] to follow the facts and give me the truth,” Mr. McDugle said.
Reed Smith investigators claim that Oklahoma City police and prosecutors mishandled evidence, failed to follow proper procedures, and failed to interview all relevant witnesses.
Mr. Knight said the only thing linking Mr. Glossip to the actual murder was Mr. Sneed’s initial testimony to police, which they claim was elicited through questionable interrogation techniques.
“There is no physical evidence that links Glossip to this crime,” Mr. Knight said. “There has never been.”
Mr. Drummond appointed lawyer Rex Duncan as independent counsel to look into the case. Mr. Duncan was the Osage County District Attorney for eight years and served as an Oklahoma state representative from 2004 to 2010.
Mr. Duncan also testified at the April Pardon and Parole Board hearing. He told the board that the death penalty must be reserved for the “worst of the worst” and the state must be cautious when doling out the ultimate punishment.
“There are monsters among us. ... If the state of Oklahoma remains in the business of killing monsters, we must be righteous at every aspect of that process. We must carry out righteous killings. Justification must be so far above reproach that only the anti-death penalty advocates could criticize the result,” Mr. Duncan said.
He told the board that Mr. Glossip’s case didn’t meet that standard.
The prosecution portrayed Mr. Sneed to both juries as a drug addict easily manipulated by Mr. Glossip, according to Mr. Knight.
According to Mr. Glossip, Mr. Sneed woke him early on Jan. 7, 1997, to tell him that two drunks had fought and broken the window in Room 102. He said he told Mr. Sneed to clean it up and to cover the broken window with plexiglass later.
He said he had no idea that Mr. Sneed had killed Mr. Van Treese.
Later that day, Mr. Glossip and his then-girlfriend left the motel to run errands and pick up supplies. He said that because they spent most of their time working at the motel, shopping trips were a break in their routine.
“It was our little getaway,” Mr. Glossip said.
At some point, the desk clerk called and told him that Mr. Van Treese was missing.
Mr. Glossip said he helped search for Mr. Van Treese and that he was questioned by police.
Mr. Sneed told police that Mr. Glossip helped to conceal the crime by taping a shower curtain over the broken window and then replacing the window with plexiglass. He also claimed that after the murder, he and Mr. Glossip divided money stolen from Mr. Van Treese.
Mr. Glossip denied trying to cover up the murder. He said he gave the answers he gave to police because he was afraid of being implicated in the crime.
“I guess I took advice from people I shouldn’t have,” Mr. Glossip told The Epoch Times in August 2023.
He said that in the days after the murder, friends told him that he should hire an attorney, so he sold some of his possessions and made an appointment to meet with a lawyer on Jan. 9, 1997, two days after the murder.
Police arrested Mr. Glossip as he left that appointment.
According to court records, police found more than $1,700 on Mr. Glossip when he was arrested. They claimed that it was money taken after the murder.
Mr. Knight said this was clearly not the case. He said the money that Mr. Glossip had was almost all $100 bills and clean. Money taken from Mr. Sneed was in various denominations and had blood on it, he said.
“[Police] did a terrible, terrible, terrible job investigating,” Mr. Knight said.
According to Mr. Duncan, the state had enough evidence to charge Mr. Glossip with a crime. His contradictory statements to police indicated that Mr. Glossip wanted to steer investigators away from Room 102. However, he said there is no evidence that Mr. Glossip participated in the actual murder.
“The facts of this case have always supported a conviction for accessory after the fact, and I believe they still do,” Mr. Duncan told the Pardon and Parole Board.
Mr. Glossip’s supporters also include some nationally known personalities.
Anti-death penalty activist Sister Helen Prejean—whose book “Dead Man Walking” inspired a 1995 film—spoke out against Mr. Glossip’s execution during a May 4, 2023, demonstration at the Oklahoma State Capitol.
She said opposing Mr. Glossip’s execution is a moral imperative.
“Our consciences and our hearts demand that we speak up,” Ms. Prejean said.
During a May 9, 2023, demonstration at the Oklahoma Capitol, television personality and clinical psychologist Phil McGraw called on state leaders to address the situation.
“The highest law enforcement officer in the state of Oklahoma courageously stood up and said, ‘We blew this.’ You’ve admitted it; now make it right,” he told a crowd of about 300.
“No execution should be carried out.”
But the state of Oklahoma disagrees.
The state’s Court of Criminal Appeals ruled on April 20, 2023, that Mr. Glossip had provided no new evidence.
According to the decision, the court is bound by the law to consider only new evidence or evidence that the defendant could not have known existed at the time of his trial. The court ruled that Mr. Glossip’s lawyers could have asked for the evidence that is being presented now because it was known to be available during the trials.
“Glossip has exhausted every avenue, and we have found no legal or actual ground which would require relief in this case. Glossip’s application for post-conviction relief is denied. We find, therefore, that neither an evidentiary hearing nor discovery is warranted in this case,” the decision states.
“Glossip is neither entitled to post-conviction relief nor a stay of execution.”
During the April 26, 2023, Pardon and Parole Board hearing, Amy Knight (no relation to Don Knight), an attorney for Mr. Glossip, acknowledged the Van Treese family’s desire for justice. The court decisions must be based on all available evidence, she said.
“The [Van Treese family’s] understandable pain and anger cannot be a reason for a government to proceed with ending the life of one of its citizens if the facts and the law do not support it,” Ms. Knight said.
