Drummond remarks on U.S. Supreme Court ruling ordering new trial for death row inmate Richard Glossip

OKLAHOMA CITY (Feb. 25, 2025) – Declaring that a great injustice has been swept away, Attorney General Gentner Drummond said today he is pleased by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that vacates the conviction of Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip.

"Our justice system is greatly diminished when an individual is convicted without a fair trial, but today we can celebrate that a great injustice has been swept away," Drummond said.  "I am pleased the high court has validated my grave concerns with how this prosecution was handled, and I am thankful we now have a fresh opportunity to see that justice is done."

The ruling was issued in the case of Glossip v. Oklahoma, confirming that Glossip did not receive a fair trial and that a new trial is warranted. "While the Supreme Court has issued its final ruling, our work here in Oklahoma is not done,” Drummond said. “My office will thoroughly review the ruling, visit with the family members, and determine the most appropriate course of action to ensure justice is secured for all involved. I am grateful the justices understood the gravity of the situation. I have long maintained that I do not believe Mr. Glossip is innocent, but it is now an undeniable fact that he did not receive a fair trial.”

Drummond arrived at his decision after ordering an independent review of the case shortly after he took office as attorney general in 2023. He learned that the State had long withheld a box of documents from Glossip’s defense team. Drummond promptly provided access to those materials, referred to as “Box 8.”

Following the independent review, which documented multiple instances of error that cast doubt on the conviction, Drummond filed a motion in April 2023 with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) to set aside Glossip’s conviction and remand the case to district court. Despite the State’s confession of error, the OCCA upheld Glossip’s conviction and death sentence.

The case then went to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The high court affirmed Drummond’s conclusion that prosecutors had committed a Napue violation by knowingly allowing false testimony that precluded Glossip from receiving a fair trial.

Glossip was initially charged with accessory to murder in January 1997, after the murder of his boss, Oklahoma City motel owner Barry Van Treese. A co-worker of Glossip’s, Justin Sneed, confessed to beating Van Treese to death in a room at the motel. As part of a plea agreement to avoid the death penalty, Sneed testified that Glossip, who had admitted to helping cover up the murder, paid him for the killing. In exchange for his testimony, Sneed received a sentence of life in prison without parole. Glossip received a death sentence for first-degree murder.

In court testimony, Sneed wrongly claimed he was not receiving medical treatment for mental issues when prosecutors knew he had been prescribed lithium for a psychiatric condition. Evidence indicates prosecutors knew or should have known the testimony was false but allowed it to stand.

“Because Sneed’s testimony was the only direct evidence of Glossip’s guilt, the jury’s assessment of Sneed’s credibility was material and necessarily determinative,” wrote the Court.

“Correcting Sneed’s lie would have undermined his credibility and revealed his willingness to lie under oath. The false testimony also bore on Glossip’s guilt because evidence of Sneed’s bipolar disorder, which could trigger impulsive violence when combined with his drug use, would have contradicted the prosecution’s portrayal of Sneed as harmless without Glossip’s influence. Hence there is a reasonable likelihood that correcting Sneed’s testimony would have affected the judgment of the jury.”