As someone who has closely followed the Richard Glossip case, I approached it last week.Oral argument I went to the Supreme Court with high expectations. I expected the justices to show they understood the gravity of this moment. After all, Glossip is on death row inmateand he shouldn't be.
Oklahoma State agrees. that make concessions Glossip said he was wrongly sentenced to death. As Attorney General Gentner Drummond told Reuters “If he (Glossip) is executed, I believe it will be a travesty of justice,” he said on October 7.
But when the judge finished asking questions and the lawyers finished answering, there seemed to be little realization that Glossip's fate was at stake.
Slate's Mark Joseph Stern got it right. when he said The Glossip court's question was “so bizarre that its very existence should be considered an indictment of the death penalty. “Can it be forced?”
Bizarre or not, when the court comes to decide this case, it will have to face the fact that Oklahoma's legal system failed Glossip. prosecutor hidden evidence that Justin Snead, the star witness against Glossip, was taking medication for bipolar disorder; They also allowed him to lying on the witness stand. Prosecutors said nothing about Sneed's testimony to the court or to Glossip's attorney.
These points have not been addressed Brady violation — Failure of the prosecutor to turn over evidence to the defense. And if the prosecutor covers up a lie, as the Supreme Court did, heldviolates the defendant's due process rights.
Such actions not only clearly ignore the Supreme Court's previous decisions; it is not compatible along with the ethical responsibilities of attorneys who prosecute crimes on behalf of the people of the state.
This is not just idle speculation. that What two different independent studies concluded After months of studying. And that's what Drummond concluded: “I admitted my mistake.” He joined Glossip in asking the Supreme Court to grant him a new trial and save his life.
During oral arguments, Justices Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan appeared to agree with Glossip and Drummond. Barely concealing their disgust at prosecutorial misconduct, they implored their colleagues on the court to uphold the integrity of the law, uphold Oklahoma's precedent, and prevent Oklahoma from executing Richard Glossip.
But if Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two of the court's biggest conservatives, are as inclined as they seem, the court won't do that. Based on the questions they asked and their background in capital cases.. Unlike the liberal justices, they did not appear particularly concerned about the prosecutor's conduct or Mr. Glossip's likelihood of being innocent. Instead, Thomas and Alito seemed preoccupied with all sorts of legal issues other than what should be done to address the mistakes in this case.
It all started with Thomas. He was once one of the quietest members of the court.asked the first question. He focused not on Glossip at all, but on the circumstances of the two prosecutors whose misconduct led to Glossip's conviction and death sentence.
Speaking about the notes they did not disclose to the defense, Thomas seemed more concerned with protecting their reputations than holding them accountable.
he started asking. Seth Waxman, Glossip's attorney, said: Waxman, you put a lot of emphasis on notes — Notes from [the prosecutors in Glossip’s case]and from your opening statements you clearly don't agree with them. Have you received any statements from any of the prosecutors?”
Thomas suggested that the court may not have known why the court did not turn over a handwritten note containing potentially important evidence about Sneed without asking what the note meant.
Waxman answered “yes” and received the statement. Thomas acted as if he had not heard or believed Waxman, only repeating his original question: “Did you interview them?”
Mr Thomas said he feared the reputations of the two prosecutors had been “undermining” and that as a result “the investigation would focus on these two prosecutors”. Waxman reviewed the case and said one prosecutor had filed an “affidavit” and the other had been interviewed in an independent prosecutor's investigation.
But Thomas didn't let go. Every time he asked a question during oral argument, Thomas made the same argument about how important it was to protect the reputation of wayward prosecutors.
as stern notebook“Thomas ate up the argument's time by asking about prosecutors, so Sotomayor finally interjected. “Under the law, anything that prosecutors have, including prison records, that knowledge is available to prosecutors. ” Sotomayor also asked if prosecutors had been questioned. paul clementDrummond's representatives “confirmed 12 times that they were.”
Throughout his argument, Mr. Sotomayor sought to draw attention to the clear irregularities that characterized Mr. Glossip's handling of the case. At times, she acts as if she were Glossip's defense attorney, asking yes-or-no questions about the prosecutor's clearly egregious misconduct and callous disregard for relevant Supreme Court precedent. repeated.
When Alito interjected, he let everyone know that he was irritated by Sotomayor's probing and persistent questioning. “Well, Mr. Waxman,” he began. “Judge Sotomayor has guided the entire case, so there may not be much left to argue.”
Then he got to work. Like a schoolboy who wants to show he's done his homework, Alito said: Parts of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Decision This explains why Drummond's false confession is not significant. Alito then held up his hand and argued that even if the court accepted all of Glossip's allegations as true, “the facts do not rise to the level of Brady's violations.”
Alito proposed it under the so-called “harmless error rule”, knowledge of Sneed's mental problems and perjury would not have changed the outcome of Glossip's case. Mr. Alito stated that “the facts are not sufficient to be established by clear and convincing evidence, and absent an alleged error, a reasonable fact-finder would find that the applicant committed the underlying crime.'' “They would not have found him guilty, or he would have sentenced him to death.” ”
It is difficult to understand how anyone could think that securing the death penalty through illegal means is a “harmless mistake.” But in the end, Alito used his time and questions to send a message to Glossip. “Even if we win the prosecution argument, we're going to lose anyway.”
As is often the case when oral arguments are heard before the Supreme Court, it is difficult to predict what the final decision will be. The same goes for Glossip. case.
amy howecurrently written on the SCOTUS blogsays there is a realistic prospect of a 4-4 tie (Judge Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case). That would “leave the state court's ruling against Glossip in place.”
But Drummond he said he was expecting “5-3 ruling in favor of Glossip's new trial.”
No matter how the case turns out, Wednesday's proceedings mean Thomas and Alito are upending the Constitution's tradition of protecting people wronged by the law, like Richard Glossip. It was a chilling reminder of that.
austin surrattWilliam Nelson Cromwell is a professor of law and political science at Amherst College. His views do not necessarily reflect those of Amherst College.
