Glossip v. Oklahoma

In 1998, Richard Glossip (defendant) was sentenced to death for the murder of Barry Van Treese. At Glossip’s trial, Justin Sneed admitted to killing Van Treese but asserted that Glossip had asked Sneed to do so. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) overturned Glossip’s conviction. On retrial, Sneed’s testimony that Glossip had asked him to kill Van Treese was the only direct evidence of Glossip’s guilt. The prosecution argued that Sneed had no propensity to commit violence except when urged by Glossip. During Sneed’s testimony, the prosecutor ascertained that Sneed regularly used illegal drugs and that he had been prescribed lithium, but Sneed said he did not know the reason for the lithium. Glossip was again convicted and sentenced to death, but he maintained his innocence in multiple habeas corpus petitions. Nearly two decades after the retrial, the state disclosed eight boxes of documents that had previously been withheld from Glossip’s defense counsel. The disclosed information revealed that Sneed had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and prescribed lithium by a psychiatrist. Oklahoma’s attorney general determined that the prosecutor knew this information and thus had knowingly failed to correct Sneed’s false testimony, in violation of Napue v. Illinois. Glossip then filed another habeas corpus petition, this time supported by the state. Nevertheless, the OCCA denied the petition, holding that Glossip’s claims were procedurally barred under Oklahoma law. The OCCA also held that no Napue error had occurred because Glossip’s defense counsel knew or should have known that Sneed was taking lithium. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.