Supreme Court tosses conviction and death sentence of Oklahoma inmate, orders new trial

The justices heard arguments in October in a case that produced a rare alliance in which lawyers for Glossip and the state argued that the high court should overturn Glossip's conviction and death sentence because he did not get a fair trial.

"We conclude that the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a majority opinion.

Justice Samuel Alito also dissented, voting to uphold the conviction and death sentence, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett would have allowed a state appeals court to decide how to proceed.

At issue was whether Glossip's constitutional rights were violated when possibly exculpatory evidence was not turned over to his lawyers at trial. And whether Oklahoma's highest criminal court should have upheld the conviction and sentence, even after that new evidence came to light.

The case against Glossip, now 62, essentially rested on the testimony of Justin Sneed, in what prosecutors had originally said was a murder for hire.

The state claimed Glossip, who was employed at the Best Budget Inn, hired co-worker Sneed for $10,000 to kill their boss. The motive-- Glossip allegedly feared he would be fired for skimming money from the business.

Sneed later admitted to beating Van Treese to death with a baseball bat and received a life sentence in exchange for his testimony.

In 2023, Republican Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond ordered an outside independent review of Glossip's case.

Drummond, citing "troubling evidence of grave prosecutorial misconduct," then formally "confessed error" by the state, and said Glossip deserved a new trial. 

Among Drummond's concerns are that prosecutors knew Sneed lied on the witness stand about his psychiatric condition and his reason for taking the mood-stabilizing drug lithium. 

The Supreme Court's syllabus of the case said "evidence of Sneed's bipolar disorder, which could trigger impulsive violence when combined with his drug use, would have contradicted the prosecution's portrayal of Sneed as harmless without Glossip's influence."

Drummond has also cited a box of evidence in the case that was destroyed, including motel receipts, a shower curtain and masking tape that Glossip's attorney, Don Knight, said could have potentially proven Glossip's innocence.

Meanwhile, the victim's relatives had told the Supreme Court that they wanted to see Glossip executed.

If Glossip were to be tried again, the death penalty would be off the table, Oklahoma County District Attorney Vicki Zemp Behenna has said.

Then as now, the state still believes Glossip may be at least guilty of aiding and abetting a crime after the fact, which would not mean a death sentence.

Fox News' Shannon Bream and the Associated Press contributed to this report.