Glossip v. Oklahoma

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 22 Jan 2024

1. Justin Sneed was, in the State's words, its "indispensable witness," and Richard Glossip's "fate turned on Sneed's credibility." Sneed is the person who "bludgeoned the victim to death, and his testimony linking Glossip to the murder was central to the conviction." State Stay Resp. 10, Glossip v. Oklahoma, No. 22A941 (U.S.). He only claimed Mr. Glossip was involved after being fed Mr. Glossip's name six times and threatened with execution. And his accounting of basic facts about the crime has shifted dramatically with each telling. With Sneed's credibility already tenuous, the State undisputedly hid from the jury Sneed's having "seen a psychiatrist" who diagnosed Sneed with a psychiatric condition that rendered him volatile and "potentially violent," particularly when combined with methamphetamine use, a street drug Sneed was abusing at the time he murdered Barry Van Treese. Id. In fact, the State allowed Sneed to affirmatively tell the jury he had not seen a psychiatrist. Before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA), the State confessed error, admitting that the failure to disclose the truth about Sneed's psychiatric condition, leaving the jury with Sneed's uncorrected false testimony and then suppressing this information for a quarter-century, rendered "Glossip's trial unfair and unreliable." Id. at 4-5. Before this Court, the State has admitted Mr. Glossip is entitled to a new trial on these grounds, as well as in light of "cumulative error" regarding "multiple issues raised in Glossip's Post-Conviction Relief Application." Id. at 4. But the OCCA has refused to stop the execution of an innocent man who never had a fair trial. This petition presents the following questions:
2. a. Whether the State's suppression of the key prosecution witness's admission he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness's false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959). b. Whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims. See Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The US Supreme Court reviewed the case involving Richard Glossip, who challenged his death sentence in Oklahoma. The central issue was whether the use of midazolam as a sedative in lethal injections constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Glossip argued that midazolam failed to reliably induce unconsciousness, leading to severe pain during executions. The Court examined evidence regarding midazolam's efficacy and considered expert testimonies on its pharmacological properties. Ultimately, the majority upheld Oklahoma's execution protocol, ruling that Glossip did not provide sufficient proof of an alternative method significantly reducing risk or demonstrating substantial harm caused by current practices.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

In dissenting opinions, some justices expressed concerns over relying on inconclusive scientific data about midazolam’s effectiveness as an anesthetic in executions. They argued that unresolved questions about potential suffering violated constitutional protections against cruel punishments. Dissenters emphasized ethical obligations to ensure humane treatment even for those sentenced to death and criticized what they saw as inadequate scrutiny applied by lower courts when evaluating new evidence presented by defense experts challenging state protocols.