{"id":112376,"date":"2024-10-10T03:17:00","date_gmt":"2024-10-09T20:17:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/hotvideos24.online\/?p=112376"},"modified":"2024-10-10T03:17:00","modified_gmt":"2024-10-09T20:17:00","slug":"the-messy-supreme-court-argument-over-whether-to-save-richard-glossips-life","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hotvideos24.online\/?p=112376","title":{"rendered":"The messy Supreme Court argument over whether to save Richard Glossip\u2019s life"},"content":{"rendered":"<p> <script async src=\"https:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/js\/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-3711241968723425\"\r\n     crossorigin=\"anonymous\"><\/script>\r\n<ins class=\"adsbygoogle\"\r\n     style=\"display:block\"\r\n     data-ad-format=\"fluid\"\r\n     data-ad-layout-key=\"-fb+5w+4e-db+86\"\r\n     data-ad-client=\"ca-pub-3711241968723425\"\r\n     data-ad-slot=\"7910942971\"><\/ins>\r\n<script>\r\n     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});\r\n<\/script><br \/>\n<\/p>\n<div id=\"zephr-anchor\">\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/case-files\/cases\/glossip-v-oklahoma-3\/\"><em>Glossip v. Oklahoma<\/em><\/a> is currently before the Supreme Court \u2014 and it is one of the most muddled death penalty cases the Court has faced in a while. Exactly how the justices untangle it will decide whether a man lives or dies.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">Richard Glossip is on death row after being convicted of an Oklahoma murder 20 years ago. Now, however, the state\u2019s Republican attorney general says that <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vox.com\/scotus\/373245\/supreme-court-oklahoma-death-penalty-richard-glossip\">his trial was unconstitutional and his conviction must be tossed out<\/a>. The state plans to retry Glossip if his conviction is vacated, but a ruling in Glossip\u2019s favor will get him off death row for now.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">Yet Attorney General Gentner Drummond has struggled to find a legal forum that will actually take the assertion that his trial was unconstitutional seriously. Oklahoma\u2019s highest criminal court refused to accept Drummond\u2019s arguments and kept Glossip on death row. The state parole board, meanwhile, split 2-2 on whether to grant clemency to Glossip, in part because one member of the board had to recuse himself because his wife was the lead prosecutor against Glossip.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">Wednesday morning\u2019s oral argument in <em>Glossip<\/em> only added more confusion to the mix. The two justices who typically take the most hardline positions against criminal defendants, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, appeared determined to toss the case out completely, without ever actually considering whether Glossip\u2019s constitutional rights were violated. They likely have an ally in Chief Justice John Roberts, who seemed to doubt whether any possible constitutional violation in this case actually mattered enough to change the outcome of Glossip\u2019s trial.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">Justice Neil Gorsuch, who often votes with the Court\u2019s most hardline members <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/18pdf\/17-8151_1qm2.pdf\">in death penalty cases<\/a>, is recused from the case for reasons the Court did not disclose. That\u2019s actually bad news for Glossip because he must assemble five affirmative votes to toss out his conviction in order to prevail, and the loss of even a skeptical justice is one less potential vote for him.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">All three of the Court\u2019s Democrats, meanwhile, appeared sympathetic to Glossip\u2019s arguments, and spent much of the case batting down Alito\u2019s proposals to dismiss the case on procedural grounds \u2014 though Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson showed some openness to forming an alliance with Thomas to send the case back down to the state courts in order to gather additional evidence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">That leaves Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, conservative Republicans who asked some questions that appeared sympathetic to Glossip, as the wild cards in this case. It is possible that they could provide the fourth and fifth vote to save Glossip\u2019s life, but far from certain.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">The alleged constitutional violation that is before the Court \u2014 that prosecutors withheld evidence that a key witness has a serious mental illness, and failed to correct this witness when he lied on the stand \u2014 is <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vox.com\/scotus\/373245\/supreme-court-oklahoma-death-penalty-richard-glossip\">fairly marginal<\/a>. It turns on four words in handwritten notes by prosecutor Connie Smothermon that were not turned over to Glossip\u2019s lawyers until January 2023. The state agrees with Glossip\u2019s legal team that these four words reveal a sufficiently serious constitutional violation to justify giving him a new trial.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">But while this narrow legal issue, which is the only issue before the Supreme Court, is the kind of legal question that reasonable judges could disagree upon, Smothermon\u2019s notes are only one piece of a wide range of evidence suggesting that Glossip\u2019s criminal conviction is unconstitutional: Oklahoma conducted two independent investigations, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vox.com\/scotus\/373245\/supreme-court-oklahoma-death-penalty-richard-glossip\">both of which concluded that Glossip\u2019s trial was fundamentally flawed<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">Among other things, those investigations found that Justin Sneed \u2014 the man who actually committed the murder at issue here \u2014 was pressured by police to implicate Glossip in the crime. They also show that police and the prosecution lost or destroyed evidence that could potentially exonerate Glossip. And they show that police inexplicably did not question potentially important witnesses or search obvious places for evidence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">Now, however, Glossip\u2019s life likely turns upon whether Kavanaugh and Barrett are moved by the procedural arguments pressed by the Court\u2019s right flank, or by the arguments pressed by both Glossip and the state: That four words in Smothermon\u2019s notes reveal a serious constitutional violation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--block-placement _80slsf1 _80slsf0 duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p><h2 class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup\">Why Smothermon\u2019s notes matter so much<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">In 2023, prosecutors turned over a box of evidence for the first time to Glossip\u2019s legal team. This box included handwritten notes from Smothermon, which included two significant questions. In the corner of the notes, Smothermon <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vox.com\/scotus\/373245\/supreme-court-oklahoma-death-penalty-richard-glossip\">wrote the words \u201con lithium?\u201d and \u201cDr. Trumpet?\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--block-placement _80slsf1 _80slsf0 duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<div style=\"position:relative\">\n<div class=\"_1agbrixi _1j8uwx1\">\n<div class=\"_1j8uwx2\">\n<div style=\"background-image:none\" class=\"duet--media--content-warning licp6k0\">\n<div class=\"duet--article--image-gallery-image _1j8uwx0 _1agbrixv\" id=\"dngyOmltYWdlOjM3NzE2MA==\"><a href=\"https:\/\/platform.vox.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/10\/glossip-note-supreme-court.webp?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0,2.057384341637,100,95.885231316726\" data-pswp-height=\"538.875\" data-pswp-width=\"958\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><img alt=\"An excerpt from a prosecutor\u2019s handwritten notes regarding Sneed and the Glossip case. Glossip v. Oklahoma brief.\" data-chromatic=\"ignore\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" data-nimg=\"fill\" class=\"mvmjsc0\" style=\"position:absolute;height:100%;width:100%;left:0;top:0;right:0;bottom:0;color:transparent;background-size:cover;background-position:50% 50%;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-image:url(&quot;data:image\/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,%3Csvg xmlns='http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg' %3E%3Cfilter id='b' color-interpolation-filters='sRGB'%3E%3CfeGaussianBlur stdDeviation='20'\/%3E%3CfeColorMatrix values='1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 100 -1' result='s'\/%3E%3CfeFlood x='0' y='0' width='100%25' height='100%25'\/%3E%3CfeComposite operator='out' in='s'\/%3E%3CfeComposite in2='SourceGraphic'\/%3E%3CfeGaussianBlur stdDeviation='20'\/%3E%3C\/filter%3E%3Cimage width='100%25' height='100%25' x='0' y='0' preserveAspectRatio='none' style='filter: url(%23b);' href='data:image\/png;base64,iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAEAAAABCAQAAAC1HAwCAAAAC0lEQVR42mN8+R8AAtcB6oaHtZcAAAAASUVORK5CYII='\/%3E%3C\/svg%3E&quot;)\" sizes=\"(max-width: 639px) 100vw, (max-width: 1023px) 50vw, 700px\" srcset=\"https:\/\/platform.vox.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/10\/glossip-note-supreme-court.webp?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0%2C2.057384341637%2C100%2C95.885231316726&amp;w=256 256w, https:\/\/platform.vox.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/10\/glossip-note-supreme-court.webp?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0%2C2.057384341637%2C100%2C95.885231316726&amp;w=376 376w, https:\/\/platform.vox.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/10\/glossip-note-supreme-court.webp?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0%2C2.057384341637%2C100%2C95.885231316726&amp;w=384 384w, https:\/\/platform.vox.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/10\/glossip-note-supreme-court.webp?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0%2C2.057384341637%2C100%2C95.885231316726&amp;w=415 415w, https:\/\/platform.vox.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/10\/glossip-note-supreme-court.webp?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0%2C2.057384341637%2C100%2C95.885231316726&amp;w=480 480w, https:\/\/platform.vox.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/10\/glossip-note-supreme-court.webp?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0%2C2.057384341637%2C100%2C95.885231316726&amp;w=540 540w, https:\/\/platform.vox.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/10\/glossip-note-supreme-court.webp?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0%2C2.057384341637%2C100%2C95.885231316726&amp;w=640 640w, https:\/\/platform.vox.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/10\/glossip-note-supreme-court.webp?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0%2C2.057384341637%2C100%2C95.885231316726&amp;w=750 750w, https:\/\/platform.vox.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/10\/glossip-note-supreme-court.webp?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0%2C2.057384341637%2C100%2C95.885231316726&amp;w=828 828w, https:\/\/platform.vox.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/10\/glossip-note-supreme-court.webp?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0%2C2.057384341637%2C100%2C95.885231316726&amp;w=1080 1080w, https:\/\/platform.vox.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/10\/glossip-note-supreme-court.webp?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0%2C2.057384341637%2C100%2C95.885231316726&amp;w=1200 1200w, https:\/\/platform.vox.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/10\/glossip-note-supreme-court.webp?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0%2C2.057384341637%2C100%2C95.885231316726&amp;w=1440 1440w, https:\/\/platform.vox.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/10\/glossip-note-supreme-court.webp?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0%2C2.057384341637%2C100%2C95.885231316726&amp;w=1920 1920w, https:\/\/platform.vox.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/10\/glossip-note-supreme-court.webp?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0%2C2.057384341637%2C100%2C95.885231316726&amp;w=2048 2048w, https:\/\/platform.vox.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/10\/glossip-note-supreme-court.webp?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0%2C2.057384341637%2C100%2C95.885231316726&amp;w=2400 2400w\" src=\"https:\/\/platform.vox.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/10\/glossip-note-supreme-court.webp?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0%2C2.057384341637%2C100%2C95.885231316726&amp;w=2400\"\/><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p><figcaption class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup xptnl12\">An excerpt from a prosecutor\u2019s handwritten notes regarding Sneed and the Glossip case. Glossip v. Oklahoma brief.<\/figcaption><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">Both the state and Glossip\u2019s legal team quickly discovered that these somewhat cryptic notes were quite significant. As the state <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/22\/22-7466\/308265\/20240423202240962_2024-4-23%20Final%20OK%20AG%20Glossip%20merits%20brief.pdf\">told the justices in its brief<\/a>, when Sneed was incarcerated in the Oklahoma County jail, that \u201cjail had just one working psychiatrist in 1997 when Sneed was held there: Dr. Larry Trombka.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">Both Glossip and the state agree that the \u201cDr. Trumpet\u201d referenced by Smothermon must have been a reference to Dr. Trombka, who was \u201cthe only possible treating psychiatrist and the only medical professional at the jail qualified to prescribe lithium.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">The state had also previously withheld Sneed\u2019s medical records from Glossip\u2019s lawyers, and these records \u201cconfirm a diagnosis of bipolar disorder with a treatment of lithium at the county jail.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">All of this matters because Sneed was the key witness against Glossip at his trial. He was the only witness who implicated Glossip in the murder, and he did so on the theory that Glossip, who managed a motel where Sneed worked, hired Glossip to kill the motel\u2019s owner.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">But Dr. Trombka later said that Sneed\u2019s mental illness could have triggered a \u201cmanic episode\u201d that would have made him \u201cmore paranoid or potentially violent.\u201d Trombka added that Sneed\u2019s condition was \u201cexacerbated by illicit drug use, such as methamphetamine.\u201d So, if Glossip\u2019s defense lawyers had known about Sneed\u2019s medical diagnosis, they could have argued that Sneed committed the murder because he experienced a serious mental health event, and not because he was coaxed into doing so by Glossip.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">During Glossip\u2019s trial, moreover, Sneed did testify that he was given lithium at the jail, but he suggested that he was prescribed it by accident and that he \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/22\/22-7466\/308265\/20240423202240962_2024-4-23%20Final%20OK%20AG%20Glossip%20merits%20brief.pdf\">never seen no psychiatrist or anything<\/a>.\u201d Thus, Smothermon\u2019s notes do not simply suggest that Sneed lied on the stand \u2014 a fact that would have diminished his credibility with the jury \u2014 they also suggest that Smothermon knew Sneed was lying and failed to correct him.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">The failure to turn over Smothermon\u2019s notes sooner, and Smothermon\u2019s failure to correct Sneed\u2019s testimony potentially violate the Constitution in two ways. In <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/373\/83\/\"><em>Brady v. Maryland<\/em><\/a> (1963), the Supreme Court held that prosecutors must turn over evidence to the defense that is \u201cfavorable to an accused\u201d if that evidence \u201cis material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">Additionally, in <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/360\/264\/\"><em>Napue v. Illinois<\/em><\/a> (1959), the Court held that \u201ca conviction obtained through use of false evidence, known to be such by representatives of the State, must fall under the Fourteenth Amendment.\u201d This rule applies even \u201cwhen the State, although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go uncorrected when it appears.\u201d So, by failing to correct Sneed\u2019s false testimony that he never saw a psychiatrist, Smothermon potentially violated <em>Napue<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">In any event, the significance of Smothermon\u2019s notes and her alleged violation of <em>Napue<\/em> appeared to divide the justices. Roberts was particularly skeptical of their relevance, pointing out early in the argument that the defense counsel knew that Sneed had been prescribed lithium, so why does it matter if defense lawyers had also known that this drug, which is used primarily to treat mental health disorders, was also prescribed by a psychiatrist?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">Significantly, however, Kavanaugh appeared to break with Roberts on this question. \u201cI\u2019m having some trouble,\u201d he told Christopher Michel, a Court-appointed lawyer tasked with defending Glossip\u2019s conviction because the state would not, with the idea that the jury would be unmoved if they learned that Sneed lied on the stand \u201cwhen the whole case depended on his credibility.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">Kavanaugh also said that Sneed\u2019s mental health diagnosis creates \u201call sorts of avenues for questioning his credibility.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">So Kavanaugh, at least, appears open to the argument that Smothermon violated <em>Napue <\/em>or <em>Brady<\/em>. But it is still unclear whether five justices agree with this argument. And it is also unclear how they will approach a procedural issue that could doom Glossip\u2019s case.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--block-placement _80slsf1 _80slsf0 duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p><h2 class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup\">The procedural problem in the <em>Glossip<\/em> case<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">Oklahoma law, like most states and the federal government, places strict limits on anyone\u2019s ability to challenge their conviction once that conviction is finalized and all of the defendant\u2019s appeals are exhausted. Among other things, Oklahoma forbids someone like Glossip from making more than one post-conviction attack on that conviction unless the issues raised in a later proceeding <a href=\"https:\/\/casetext.com\/case\/glossip-v-state-2\">could not have been raised earlier<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">These barriers, moreover, are augmented by an Oklahoma state law that required Glossip to present any new evidence he discovered <a href=\"http:\/\/okcca.net\/rules\/rule-9.7\/\">within 60 days of discovering it<\/a>. So Glossip\u2019s lawyers could not take their time, gather all the evidence they needed to make the best case for their client, and then present it to the courts all at once. They had to present this evidence piecemeal or lose the ability to raise it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">As a result, the case currently before the Supreme Court is Glossip\u2019s fifth legal proceeding challenging his conviction after it was finalized.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">Before this fifth proceeding reached the justices, moreover, Oklahoma\u2019s highest criminal court rejected his <em>Brady <\/em>and <em>Napue<\/em> arguments, in part because, the court claimed, Oklahoma\u2019s laws limiting his ability to repeatedly challenge his conviction prevented him from raising those arguments. If the Oklahoma court is right about this point, that precludes the Supreme Court from hearing the case, because the US Supreme Court typically <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vox.com\/policy-and-politics\/2022\/12\/4\/23481063\/supreme-court-moore-harper-independent-state-legislature-doctrine-elections\">cannot overrule a state\u2019s highest court on a question of state law<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">Indeed, most of Wednesday\u2019s argument focused on this threshold question \u2014 does Oklahoma\u2019s own law prevent Glossip from even raising his <em>Napue<\/em> and <em>Brady<\/em> arguments? <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">The fact that Oklahoma\u2019s attorney general is on Glossip\u2019s side in this case plays an enormous role in the debate over this threshold question. Were Glossip alone in seeking relief, he would probably be doomed. But several justices argued that Drummond has an absolute right to waive the procedural rules that would otherwise prevent Glossip from raising his <em>Brady<\/em> and <em>Napue<\/em> claims.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">Notably, one of the justices who seemed to agree that Drummond has waived those procedural rules is Barrett, who noted at one point that it is very unusual for a court not to accept such a waiver. Similarly, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that there are \u201c100 years of history\u201d where no Oklahoma court refused to honor a similar waiver, suggesting that the state court that heard Glossip\u2019s case made up a one-time-only rule to prevent him from challenging his conviction.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">Yet, while at least four justices seemed convinced that the state court should have honored Drummond\u2019s decision to waive the procedural bars to Glossip\u2019s case, it is unclear whether there are five. Kavanaugh, the most likely fifth vote for Glossip, played his cards especially close to his chest, often framing his questions about whether Smothermon violated <em>Napue <\/em>or <em>Brady <\/em>with caveats like \u201cif you get past all the procedural bars.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _1agbrixh lg8ac51 lg8ac50 xkp0cg0\">So the bottom line is that Glossip could prevail, but he\u2019s got a tough road. Assuming that all three of the Democratic justices are on his side, he needs to win over Barrett \u2014 who seemed to be with him on the procedural question but who was largely quiet on the merits of his case \u2014 while also winning over Kavanaugh, who seemed to be with Glossip on the merits but silent on the procedural question.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<aside class=\"_1tzd3in0 _1agbrixx\">\n<p class=\"_1tzd3in1\">You\u2019ve read <!-- -->1<!-- --> article<!-- --> in the last month<\/p>\n<div class=\"_1tzd3in2\">\n<div class=\"_1tzd3in3\">\n<p class=\"_1tzd3in4\">Here at Vox, we believe in helping everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help to shape it. Our mission is to create clear, accessible journalism to empower understanding and action.<\/p>\n<p class=\"_1tzd3in4\">If you share our vision, please consider supporting our work by becoming a <i>Vox Member<\/i>. Your support ensures Vox a stable, independent source of funding to underpin our journalism. If you are not ready to become a Member, even small contributions are meaningful in supporting a sustainable model for journalism.<\/p>\n<p class=\"_1tzd3in4\">Thank you for being part of our community.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"_1tzd3in5\"><img alt=\"Swati Sharma\" loading=\"lazy\" width=\"59\" height=\"69\" decoding=\"async\" data-nimg=\"1\" style=\"color:transparent\" srcset=\"\/_next\/image?url=%2Fstatic-assets%2Fheadshots%2Fswati.png&amp;w=64&amp;q=75 1x, \/_next\/image?url=%2Fstatic-assets%2Fheadshots%2Fswati.png&amp;w=128&amp;q=75 2x\" src=\"https:\/\/www.vox.com\/_next\/image?url=%2Fstatic-assets%2Fheadshots%2Fswati.png&amp;w=128&amp;q=75\"\/><\/p>\n<div class=\"_1tzd3in7\">\n<p class=\"_1tzd3in8\">Swati Sharma<\/p>\n<p class=\"_1tzd3in9\">Vox Editor-in-Chief<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/aside>\n<\/div>\n<p><script async src=\"https:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/js\/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-3711241968723425\"\r\n     crossorigin=\"anonymous\"><\/script>\r\n<ins class=\"adsbygoogle\"\r\n     style=\"display:block\"\r\n     data-ad-format=\"fluid\"\r\n     data-ad-layout-key=\"-fb+5w+4e-db+86\"\r\n     data-ad-client=\"ca-pub-3711241968723425\"\r\n     data-ad-slot=\"7910942971\"><\/ins>\r\n<script>\r\n     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});\r\n<\/script><br \/>\n<br \/><div data-type=\"_mgwidget\" data-widget-id=\"1660802\">\r\n<\/div>\r\n<script>(function(w,q){w[q]=w[q]||[];w[q].push([\"_mgc.load\"])})(window,\"_mgq\");\r\n<\/script>\r\n<br \/>\n<br \/><a href=\"https:\/\/www.vox.com\/scotus\/377151\/supreme-court-richard-glossip-oklahoma-death-penalty\">Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Glossip v. Oklahoma is currently before the Supreme Court \u2014 and it is one of the most muddled death penalty cases the Court has faced in a while. Exactly how &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/hotvideos24.online\/?p=112376\" class=\"more-link\">Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8629],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-112376","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-u-s","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hotvideos24.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112376","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hotvideos24.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hotvideos24.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hotvideos24.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hotvideos24.online\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=112376"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/hotvideos24.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112376\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hotvideos24.online\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=112376"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hotvideos24.online\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=112376"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hotvideos24.online\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=112376"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}