The state of Oklahoma is scheduled to execute Richard Glossip on May 18 for the 1997 murder of his employer Barry Van Treese.
The Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board denied Glossip’s application for clemency on April 26.
An unusual partnership of anti-death penalty activists and capital punishment advocates will gather at the state capitol in Oklahoma City on May 4 for a press conference and demonstration asking Gov. Kevin Stitt to intervene.
In a history-making move, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond asked the Pardon and Parole Board during its April 26 meeting to stop the execution and give Glossip a new trial. Drummond, who was not Attorney General when Glossip was on trial, said the state made mistakes that denied him a fair trial.
The Court of Criminal Appeals for the state of Oklahoma ruled on April 20 that after two trials, five appeals, and two reprieves, the former motel manager has exhausted all of his legal options.
“Glossip is neither entitled to post-conviction relief, nor a stay of execution,” the Appeals Court decision reads.
Neither Drummond’s nor Stitt’s offices responded to requests for comment from The Epoch Times.
Drummond told the Pardon and Parole Board that he believes Glossip is guilty of being an accessory after the fact—perhaps even murder, but not beyond a reasonable doubt.
“The state continues to believe that Glossip has culpability in the murder of Barry Van Treese,” Drummond wrote in his petition to vacate Glossip’s conviction and sentence, which The Epoch Times obtained.
For Drummond and others who advocate for Glossip, the crux of the issue is courtroom testimony by the confessed killer, Justin Sneed.
According to court records, Glossip was manager of the Best Budget Inn in Oklahoma City, one of two motels owned by Van Treese. The other motel was in Tulsa.
In 1997, Sneed was a 19-year-old roofer and methamphetamine addict whom Glossip had hired to do maintenance work at the motel. He confessed to police that he beat Van Treese to death with a baseball bat. Sneed told police Glossip was afraid that Van Treese suspected him of stealing from the motel and had come to Oklahoma City to confirm his suspicions.
Glossip reportedly wanted to get rid of Van Treese and take over the motel business, according to court documents.
During a videotaped interrogation from 1997, posted on YouTube by a group called SaveRichardGlossip, Sneed told police Glossip promised him $10,000 if he would kill Van Treese.
According to the court record, Sneed testified against Glossip to avoid the death penalty. He is serving a life sentence.
In the video, Sneed told police that Glossip hatched the murder plan with Sneed’s brother, Wes. When Wes returned to Texas to turn himself in on a warrant for violating probation, Glossip turned to Sneed. The prosecution portrayed Sneed to both juries as a drug addict with mental health problems who was easily manipulated by Glossip.
According to its opinion denying Glossip’s request, the Appeals Court said that trial testimony indicated Glossip gave police contradictory answers when asked where Van Treese was. He also reportedly kept people from searching room 102 of the motel.
That is the room where Van Treese was murdered, and his body was eventually found by police and a motel security guard.
In his petition, Drummond points out that Sneed testified in court that he had been given lithium, a mood stabilizer used to treat mental illness, while in jail. He said he had allergies and didn’t know why he was given lithium.
According to court records, Sneed was given lithium after two psychiatric examinations. In his petition, Drummond writes that this indicates Sneed was not a reliable witness.
“The state has concluded that Justin Sneed has made material misstatements to the jury regarding his psychiatric treatment and the reasons for his lithium prescription,” Drummond wrote.
Law Firm Claims to Find New Evidence
The Philadelphia-based law firm of Reed Smith LLP investigated the Glossip case pro bono at the request of 34 Oklahoma state legislators. It issued a more than 300-page report claiming to have uncovered new evidence proving that Glossip is not guilty. In a report summary, Reed Smith wrote that it re-interviewed witnesses and interviewed new witnesses.In addition to questioning Sneed’s testimony, the Reed Smith investigators claim Oklahoma City police and prosecutors mishandled evidence, failed to follow proper procedures, and failed to interview all relevant witnesses.
The appeals court ruled that in two trials and four previous appeals, Glossip could have or should have brought up these issues, which were already known. The court ruled that Glossip had exhausted all the legal remedies available.
In his concurring opinion on the ruling, Appeals Court Judge Gary Lumpkin wrote that Glossip’s case had been thoroughly reviewed.
“At no level of review has a court determined error in a trial proceeding of this petitioner nor has there been a showing of actual innocence,” Lumpkin wrote.
