Kash Patel Becomes the Focus of Media Analysis They Consistently Get Wrong
How America Has Destroyed Its Democracy, Part Two: The Aristocracy of Merit
Three Congressional Missteps on Healthcare
Today’s Qualifications to Be President of the U.S.
Climate Alarmists Howl After EPA Rescinds ‘Endangerment Finding’
Ukraine's Bureaucrats Are Finishing What China Started
Rising Federal Debt: Why Strategic Planning Matters More Than Ever for High-Net-Worth Fami...
Classroom Political Activism Shifts a Teacher’s Role from Educator to Indoctrinator
As America Celebrates 250, We Must Help Iran Celebrate Another 2,500
Guatemalan Citizen Admits Using Stolen Identity to Obtain Custody of Teen Migrant
Oregon-Based Utility PacifiCorp Settles for $575M Over Six Devastating Wildfires
Armed Man Rammed Substation Near Las Vegas in Apparent Terror Plot Before Committing...
DOJ Moves to Strip U.S. Citizenship From Former North Miami Mayor Over Immigration...
DOJ Probes Three Michigan School Districts That Allegedly Teach Gender Ideology
5th Circuit Vacates Ruling That Blocked Louisiana's Mandate to Display 10 Commandments in...
Tipsheet

Supreme Court Overturns Death Row Inmate Richard Glossip's Sentence and Conviction

Supreme Court Overturns Death Row Inmate Richard Glossip's Sentence and Conviction
AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki

The Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out the murder conviction against former death row inmate Richard Glossip, whose case has garnered national attention.

Glossip was found guilty of murder in 1998 for the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese in Oklahoma. Treese owned the motel at which Glossip worked as the manager. The inmate was accused of orchestrating the murder, which was carried out by Justin Sneed, a maintenance worker. However, Glossip has always maintained his innocence.

Advertisement

There were several issues with the prosecution’s case against Glossip. They allowed a witness to give false testimony on the stand. The Supreme Court ruled that this violated Glossip’s right to a fair trial.

This means Glossip will get a new trial.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the ruling. Thomas argued that the ruling had “cast aside” the concerns of the victim’s family.

Glossip’s attorney praised the ruling, noting how prosecutors also concealed critical evidence from the defense team.

Don Knight, Glossip’s attorney, said the court was right to overturn the conviction because prosecutors hid critical evidence from the defense team. “Today was a victory for justice and fairness in our judicial system,” Knight said in a statement. “Rich Glossip, who has maintained his innocence for 27 years, will now be given the chance to have the fair trial that he has always been denied.”

Glossip’s wife wrote in a text to The Associated Press: “Rich and I opened the decision together on the phone this morning, knowing it would be a life-changing moment. To say that we are overcome with emotion is an understatement. We are deeply grateful. Today is truly an answered prayer.”

Advertisement

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond was one of the key figures arguing for a new trial. He believes Glossip committed the crime, but took issue with how the prosecution was handled.

Van Treese’s family expressed confidence that Glossip will be convicted if he faces a new trial, according to Fox News.

"The family remains confident that when that new trial is held, the jury will return the same verdict as in the first two trials: guilty of first-degree murder," Derek Van Treese, Barry’s son, said in a statement to Fox News Digital provided by the family’s lawyer, Paul Cassell.

"The burning issue here is of process and procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has concluded that one small bit of impeachment evidence should have been presented at Glossip’s trial and has remanded for a new trial," he continued. "Two juries have shown that the issue at hand isn't one of guilt or innocence, Glossip is clearly guilty of first-degree murder."

Advertisement

Glossip will remain in prison for the time being as Drummond consults with the Oklahoma County district attorney on whether to try him again.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement