Supreme Court hears oral arguments in consequential Oklahoma death penalty case

CNA Staff, Oct 9, 2024 / 15:05 pm (CNA).

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in the case of an Oklahoma man on death row who may have been wrongfully convicted — a case the Oklahoma City archbishop has said could help further respect for “the dignity of life.”

This is the second time Richard Glossip’s contentious death sentence has come before the Supreme Court. According to news reports, Glossip has lived through nine execution dates and at least three “last meals.”

Glossip was convicted in 1998 for allegedly ordering a handyman at a motel Glossip managed to murder the motel owner, who was found bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat. Justin Sneed, the handyman, confessed to killing the man while on meth and is currently serving a life sentence.

Glossip, who has maintained that he had no involvement in the murder, was convicted for the murder for hire chiefly on Sneed’s testimony, which Sneed had agreed to give in order to avoid the death penalty himself.

Since his initial conviction, two independent investigations uncovered serious problems with his trial, including allegations of police misconduct and what were reportedly incorrect instructions given to the jury in the case.

The state of Oklahoma, via Oklahoma’s Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond, has admitted that it had erred in sentencing Glossip to death.

The state asked the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) to overturn Glossip’s conviction and grant him a new trial. That court in April 2023 refused to do so, however, and ordered Glossip’s execution to proceed. Drummond called that decision “remarkable and remarkably flawed.”

Writing to the Supreme Court justices in May 2023, Drummond said that “based on careful review of new information that has come to light, including a report by an independent counsel appointed by the state, Glossip’s capital sentence cannot be sustained.”

The Supreme Court subsequently granted a stay of Glossip’s execution that same month, overruling the OCCA.

In an order announced in January, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the state of Oklahoma violated Glossip’s constitutional rights when prosecutors suppressed evidence that their key witness, Sneed, was under a psychiatrist’s care, and also that prosecutors failed to correct Sneed’s false testimony, SCOTUSBlog reported. The Supreme Court will also consider the question of whether it has the power to review the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision at all, or whether it is a state matter.

A decision in the case isn’t expected until June 2025. Justice Neil Gorsuch has recused himself from the case because he sat on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals when that court decided one of Glossip’s earlier appeals, NPR reported.

In January, when the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case, Archbishop Paul Coakley of Oklahoma City, who often speaks out against the death penalty, said in a statement to CNA that the Supreme Court’s agreement to review Glossip’s case “offers hope in furthering the cause toward one day abolishing the death penalty.”

“With new evidence and the state of Oklahoma’s admission of errors in the case prompting the Supreme Court review — issues that seem to be more and more prevalent — we can clearly see reason to reconsider institutionalized violence against the incarcerated as we hopefully move to respect the dignity of life for all human persons,” Coakley told CNA.

Since 1976, Oklahoma has carried out the highest number of executions per capita of any state, according to Catholic Mobilizing Network (CMN), a national advocacy organization that demonstrates against the death penalty.

Glossip was party to a previous lawsuit that made it to the Supreme Court in 2015, wherein the court ultimately ruled in favor of the continued use of the sedative midazolam, a drug that critics contended had caused excruciating pain in several controversial state executions in Ohio, Arizona, and Oklahoma. Glossip had argued along with two other inmates that midazolam was not certain to work properly and could result in a painful execution that violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, reflecting an update promulgated by Pope Francis in 2018, describes the death penalty as “inadmissible” and an “attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” (No. 2267). The change reflects a development in Catholic doctrine in recent years.

St. John Paul II, calling the death penalty “cruel and unnecessary,” encouraged Christians to be “unconditionally pro-life” and said that “the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil.” The bishops of the United States have spoken frequently in favor of life sentences for convicted murderers, even those who have committed heinous crimes.