The case against Richard Glossip fell apart. Even the state’s Republican attorney general says he should not be executed. The Supreme Court may not care.
The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will hear Glossip v. Oklahoma, a long-simmering death penalty case where the state’s Republican attorney general is urging the justices not to make his state kill a man after the prosecution’s case completely fell apart.
Last May, the Court temporarily blocked Richard Glossip’s execution, after Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond informed the Court that “the State of Oklahoma recently made the difficult decision to confess error and support vacating the conviction of Richard Glossip.”
Among other things, a committee of state lawmakers commissioned a law firm to investigate whether Glossip, who was convicted for allegedly hiring a coworker to kill his boss in 1997, received a fair trial. The firm released a 343-page report laying out many errors in the process that ended in Glossip being sentenced to die:
…
I totally understand that this is one of those “blurry line” situations where I agree that we should err on the side of “follow the job as described” specifically to avoid the situations you described. If we didn’t have those standards, and it was just up to each individuals “moral compass”, things would suck. However, in this particular case, where the actual life of an innocent person - and here I am going to emphasise that they are innocent in the eyes of the court as well - is on the line, I absolutely support not following through, regardless of what the supreme court decides.
To wit, I support the governor pushing back with every means they have