Posted on Apr 21, 2023
Oklahoma’s Top Prosecutor Doesn’t Want to Execute an Innocent Man. A Court Is Forcing Him to Do...
472
5
2
2
2
0
Richard Glossip is almost certainly an innocent man. In the years since police first accused him of murder in 1997, the entire case against Glossip has completely fallen apart. His first trial was tainted by so much prosecutorial misconduct and so many procedural errors that the state judiciary threw out his conviction. His second trial was equally marred by false testimony and mishandled evidence. Republican state legislators have demanded clemency for Glossip, convinced he is innocent. His execution has been scheduled and called off seven times. Earlier this month, Oklahoma’s Republican attorney general, Gentner Drummond, even took the extraordinary step of asking the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to vacate his conviction and death sentence, admitting that his second trial was “unfair and unreliable.”
On Thursday, the court refused. In a unanimous opinion, the court waved away overwhelming evidence of innocence and decided that, actually, Glossip is guilty—and must be put to death on May 18. The decision makes a sadistic mockery of the judiciary’s supposed role as a guardian of individual liberties. It favors vengeance over justice. Sadly, it aligns with the current U.S. Supreme Court’s merciless enthusiasm for the swift execution of people who are probably innocent.
On Thursday, the court refused. In a unanimous opinion, the court waved away overwhelming evidence of innocence and decided that, actually, Glossip is guilty—and must be put to death on May 18. The decision makes a sadistic mockery of the judiciary’s supposed role as a guardian of individual liberties. It favors vengeance over justice. Sadly, it aligns with the current U.S. Supreme Court’s merciless enthusiasm for the swift execution of people who are probably innocent.
Oklahoma’s Top Prosecutor Doesn’t Want to Execute an Innocent Man. A Court Is Forcing Him to Do...
Posted from slate.com
Posted 1 y ago
Responses: 2
1
1
0
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
..."Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court is Glossip’s only remaining hope for judicial relief. His lawyers have vowed to appeal, but the odds are bleak. SCOTUS already greenlit Glossip’s execution once, in a 2015 decision about the constitutionality of lethal injection. The court was uninterested in his claims of innocence then, and it’s far more conservative today. In January, SCOTUS did send a strong message to the Texas judiciary that it should allow the retrial of a defendant at the request of the district attorney, who no longer trusted his conviction. But that case involved a notorious forensic lab scandal that directly tainted the conviction; it’s unclear whether SCOTUS will grant the same courtesy here, where there’s no single factor that decisively punctures the guilty verdict.
Glossip may have more success at Oklahoma’s parole board, especially if Drummond supports his plea for a commutation to life without parole. A life behind bars, of course, remains a profoundly unjust penalty for a man who committed no crime. But the alternative is a court-mandated death on May 18—an execution that the state’s chief law enforcement officer does not even want.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ cruelty lies not only in its refusal to help Glossip, but also in its zeal to overrule prosecutors’ mercy and orchestrate his execution itself. A more sensible SCOTUS would recognize that killing a man against the wishes of the state is grievously unconstitutional. The SCOTUS we have is more likely to cheer along his death."
..."Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court is Glossip’s only remaining hope for judicial relief. His lawyers have vowed to appeal, but the odds are bleak. SCOTUS already greenlit Glossip’s execution once, in a 2015 decision about the constitutionality of lethal injection. The court was uninterested in his claims of innocence then, and it’s far more conservative today. In January, SCOTUS did send a strong message to the Texas judiciary that it should allow the retrial of a defendant at the request of the district attorney, who no longer trusted his conviction. But that case involved a notorious forensic lab scandal that directly tainted the conviction; it’s unclear whether SCOTUS will grant the same courtesy here, where there’s no single factor that decisively punctures the guilty verdict.
Glossip may have more success at Oklahoma’s parole board, especially if Drummond supports his plea for a commutation to life without parole. A life behind bars, of course, remains a profoundly unjust penalty for a man who committed no crime. But the alternative is a court-mandated death on May 18—an execution that the state’s chief law enforcement officer does not even want.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ cruelty lies not only in its refusal to help Glossip, but also in its zeal to overrule prosecutors’ mercy and orchestrate his execution itself. A more sensible SCOTUS would recognize that killing a man against the wishes of the state is grievously unconstitutional. The SCOTUS we have is more likely to cheer along his death."
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google