At the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday morning, Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether Richard Glossip would have been sentenced to death if the jury knew the star witness lied. The case of Glossip v. Oklahoma seeks to overturn Glossip’s conviction based on false testimony. The state witness, Justin Sneed, claimed Glossip coerced him into a murder, but it was later revealed that Sneed lied about receiving psychiatric care.
Oklahoma’s Attorney General, Gentner Drummond, argued to spare Glossip’s life due to the false testimony’s critical role in the conviction. The Supreme Court appointed an outside lawyer to uphold Glossip’s conviction, citing Sneed’s lack of credibility. However, Justices Kagan and Kavanaugh raised doubts about Sneed’s testimony’s impact.
Glossip, twice convicted based solely on Sneed’s testimony, maintains his innocence. Several appeals have revealed potential wrongful conviction, yet the Oklahoma Court has repeatedly denied new evidence. Justice Clarence Thomas focused on attacking prosecutors’ reputations, while the court’s decision to uphold Glossip’s execution remains controversial.
In the midst of these legal battles, a lone protester outside the Supreme Court raised concerns about the court’s leaning towards increasing the death penalty. Despite the challenges, Glossip’s attorney remains hopeful for a fair trial for his client.
[ad_2]
Source link