The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday directed Oklahoma to vacate the murder conviction of Richard Glossip, the state’s most famous death row inmate, finding that prosecutors violated Glossip’s civil rights during his trial more than 20 years ago. 

“Glossip is entitled to a new trial,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion for five justices. She was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Kentaji Brown and Amy Comey Barrett, who dissented in part. 

Glossip has spent 26 years on death row, had two trials, nine execution dates and three last meals. Tuesday’s ruling came as Oklahoma prepares to execute its first inmate of the year in March, the 16th since the state resumed executions in 2021.

The court found prosecutors violated Glossip’s rights by not correcting false testimony of Glossip’s alleged co-conspirator, Justin Sneed. The testimony was vital to convict Glossip in the 1997 slaying of Barry Van Treese, who was found beaten to death at the Best Budget Inn in Oklahoma City. Glossip has maintained his innocence since his arrest. Prosecutors accused Glossip — the hotel manager — of hiring Sneed, his employee, to carry out the killing. 

Read the United States Supreme Court’s ruling

Sneed testified at trial that he was prescribed lithium as cold medicine, though it was later determined he took the drug to treat bipolar disorder. The court ruled Tuesday that prosecutors “knew Sneed’s testimony was false” and “almost certainly had access to Sneed’s medical file.”

Court transcripts show Sneed testified that he had requested over-the-counter cold medication after he was arrested, but “somehow they ended up giving me lithium for some reason. I don’t know why. I never seen no psychiatrist or anything.”

“Correcting Sneed’s lie would have undermined his credibility and revealed his willingness to lie under oath,” the court wrote. “The false testimony also bore on Glossip’s guilt because evidence of Sneed’s bipolar disorder …. Would have contradicted the prosecution’s portrayal of Sneed as harmless without Glossip’s influence.”

Sign up to be notified whenever we publish a new story

Sneed was also convicted for the murder of Van Treese and was sentenced to life without parole and remains in a medium-security prison.

Glossip’s attorney, Don Knight, called the ruling a “victory for justice and fairness.”

“Glossip will now be given the chance to have the fair trial that he has always been denied,” Knight said in a statement.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from Tuesday’s ruling. Thomas wrote past rulings against Glossip by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board “should have marked the end of the road for Glossip.”

“Instead, the court stretches the law at every turn to rule in his favor,” Thomas wrote, calling Sneed’s false testimony “patently immaterial.”

“The Court’s decision distorts our jurisdiction, imagines a constitutional violation where none occurred, and abandons basic principles governing the disposition of state-court appeals,” Thomas wrote, arguing Glossip should be “entitled to no more than an evidentiary hearing.”

Rep. Kevin McDugle, R-Broken Arrow, who is supportive of the death penalty, but has advocated for legislative reform, told The Frontier on Tuesday he was “ecstatic” with the Supreme Court’s decision. 

“Oklahoma lawmakers have got to make changes to the Oklahoma death row processes,” McDugle said. “We have to be sure corruption has not been a part of the process and when we know it has been we have to acknowledge it ourselves instead of sending it to the Supreme Court. This decision should have been made by the Court of Criminal Appeals.”

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled against Glossip’s attempts to have his sentence vacated in 2023. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond said that year he believed Glossip had not received a fair trial. Oklahoma County District Attorney Vicki Behenna, a Democrat, has said that if Glossip were re-tried today his case would not be eligible for the death penalty. 

Drummond said in a statement Tuesday “a great injustice has been swept away.”

“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 said.

Lea Glossip, an anti-death penalty advocate who married Glossip in 2022, told The Frontier she and her husband read the court’s decision together on the phone Tuesday morning.

“To say we are overcome with emotion is an understatement,” she said. “We are deeply grateful, today is truly a day for answered prayer.”