CNN
—
The Supreme Court grappled Wednesday with an enchantment from an Oklahoma death row inmate who even the state’s conservative legal professional common believes mustn't be executed, with some justices signaling a willingness to let state courts additional evaluate allegations that prosecutors withheld proof in the case.
After almost two hours of oral argument, it was clear the court docket’s three-justice liberal wing would facet with Richard Glossip, 61, who was convicted of arranging the homicide of Barry Van Treese in 1997. At least two of the court docket’s conservatives — Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — signaled deep reservations with Glossip’s enchantment and indicated they might oppose him.
Of the conservatives, Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared probably the most sympathetic to Glossip, who has been scheduled for execution 9 instances and has eaten his final meal 3 times solely to have his execution stayed.
That means the excessive court docket’s majority resolution will probably come down to how Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett view his case.
Glossip’s conviction rests on the testimony of Justin Sneed, the person who killed Van Treese with a baseball bat in a resort.
In change for avoiding the death sentence himself, Sneed implicated Glossip because the mastermind of the crime. But years after Glossip’s conviction, the state disclosed proof that Sneed was handled for a critical psychiatric situation — a revelation Glossip’s attorneys say prosecutors withheld from the jury.
“He lied on the stand,” mentioned Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, noting that Sneed testified that he by no means noticed a psychiatrist when, in reality, it was a jail psychiatrist who had prescribed him lithium to deal with bipolar dysfunction. “Your one witness has been exposed as a liar.”
Thomas, who, together with Alito, led the questioning opposing Glossip, repeatedly requested why investigators trying into the case years later didn’t extra completely query the prosecutors concerned on the time about notes that they had taken indicating they knew about Sneed’s prognosis and therapy.
“They are central to this case,” Thomas mentioned of the prosecutors. “It would seem an interview of these two prosecutors would be central.”
That may open a possible resolution for the court docket. Several members, together with liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, mentioned the chance of sending the case again to state court docket to additional evaluate the that means of the notes prosecutors took on the time.
“Why wouldn’t we send it back for an evidentiary hearing?” Jackson mentioned at one level. “It’s my understanding that there’s never been a court determination of any of these facts.”
The case has landed on the Supreme Court at a second when the death penalty — and the court docket’s strategy to it — is the main target of uncommon consideration and scrutiny.
A divided resolution final month permitting Missouri to execute Marcellus Williams — regardless of the objection of prosecutors — drew sharp criticism from teams opposed to the death penalty.
Several different death penalty appeals, in the meantime, are pending on the Supreme Court’s docket. On Friday, the court docket granted an enchantment from Ruben Gutierrez, a death row inmate in Texas who was denied a possibility to search post-conviction DNA testing. The case will probably be up for oral argument early subsequent 12 months.
The justices may also be deciding whether or not to hear arguments in different death row circumstances after they convene on Friday for his or her weekly, closed-door convention assembly. One entails an Oklahoma girl convicted of killing her husband who says prosecutors sex-shamed her throughout her trial, referring to her in court docket as a “slut puppy” and holding up her underwear for the jury. Another entails an Alabama man who claims he's intellectually disabled and subsequently ineligible for execution below Supreme Court precedent.
The Glossip case is arguably the very best profile to attain the court docket in years, and it drew two of probably the most skilled Supreme Court legal professionals in the nation. Seth Waxman, a former solicitor common, is arguing on Glossip’s behalf. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a Republican who helps sparing Glossip, was represented by Paul Clement, additionally a former solicitor common.
Even although Drummond referred to as for a brand new trial, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma upheld Glossip’s sentence, ruling that the proof at difficulty wouldn’t have modified the end result of the case and that Glossip’s attorneys knew that Sneed was taking lithium.
Kavanaugh, who may show to be a key vote, raised a priority with that place. Kavanaugh mentioned he was having “some trouble” with the concept that “it still wouldn’t have made a difference to the jury had they known that Sneed was bipolar and that he had lied on the stand.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch was recused, that means that solely eight justices will determine Glossip’s fate.
Before the justices may even attain the deserves of Glossip’s enchantment, they need to first resolve a procedural hurdle: Whether the state court docket erred in ignoring Drummond’s admission of error. Defending the conviction and sentence, legal professional Christopher Michel argued that the state court docket determined the case in a approach that leaves the Supreme Court little room to rule in favor of Glossip.
Glossip has filed many appeals throughout his greater than 25 years behind bars. In 2015, the Supreme Court rejected his problem to a brand new deadly injection protocol the state had adopted.
