Summary
U.S. Supreme Court case seeking to overturn a murder conviction and death sentence that have already been reviewed many times over many years. Richard Glossip, a motel employee, was twice convicted of hiring another employee to murder the owner of the motel, Barry Van Treese, in 1997. The second conviction and death sentence were in 2004, yet Glossip has been able to delay execution for two decades through repeated litigation. Most recently, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed his supposedly new evidence and found that it was neither new nor convincing. Glossip has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. Strangely, the Oklahoma Attorney General has switched sides and supported Glossip, leaving the Van Treese family to oppose the petition themselves. University of Utah law professor Paul Cassell and CJLF represented the family in asking the court to let the state court's decision stand without further review. The Oklahoma District Attorneys' Association also joined this brief.
After lengthy consideration, the high court took the case up for full briefing and argument but added an issue suggested in our brief. At this stage, CJLF filed its own brief arguing that added issue, i.e., whether the U.S. Supreme Court even has jurisdiction to review the state court's decision. Professor Cassell filed a brief on behalf of the Van Treese family debunking the parties' misrepresentation of the facts of the case. A majority of the court agreed with Glossip. Justice Thomas's dissenting opinion tracks our argument in Part II.
