Richard Glossip denied stay of execution: Will Supreme Court intervene?

After the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Richard Glossip's plea for a stay, his attorneys plan to appeal US Supreme Court for stay of execution.

Janelle Stecklein/Community Newspaper Holdings/AP
Death row inmate Richard Glossip is pictured at the state penitentiary in McAlester, Okla., in November 2014. Mr. Glossip's attorneys said Monday that they will petition the Supreme Court to halt his execution, which is scheduled for Wednesday.

Oklahoma's highest criminal court on Monday denied last-minute motions to stay the execution of Richard Glossip scheduled for Wednesday evening.

In a hearing Monday, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected arguments that the court should halt Mr. Glossip's execution, sentenced to death for involvement in the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese, the owner of the Best Budget Inn where Glossip worked as the resident manager.

Glossip's lawyers plan to appeal the Oklahoma court's ruling to the US Supreme Court, attorney Mark Henricksen said Monday.

"We anticipate filing a petition with the Supreme Court within the next 24 hours seeking a stay and further review," said Mr. Henricksen, according to the Associated Press.

His execution has been postponed twice this year, first in January after his lawyer challenged the use of experimental drug midazolam for executions arguing it would cause severe pain and suffering, then earlier this month after his attorneys filed what they said was new evidence that points to Justin Sneed, who is serving a life sentence, acting alone in Mr. Van Treese’s death.

At Monday’s hearing, the court ruled that the new evidence simply expands on theories that were already raised on Glossip's original appeals.

"None of the trial witnesses have recanted their testimony, and Glossip has presented no credible evidence that the witnesses gave falsified testimony at trial," Judge David Lewis wrote in his opinion. "Glossip's conviction is not based solely on the testimony of a co-defendant and the execution of the sentence will not violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

In a dissenting opinion, Presiding Judge Clancy Smith wrote that the court should grant a 60-day stay of execution and hold an evidentiary hearing.

"While finality of judgment is important, the state has no interest in executing an actually innocent man," Smith wrote. "An evidentiary hearing will give Glossip the chance to prove his allegations that Sneed has recanted, or demonstrate to the court that he cannot provide evidence that would exonerate him."

Judge Arlene Johnson also dissented, writing separately that she thought the original trial was "deeply flawed" and that an evidentiary hearing should be ordered.

This case has received national attention with opponents of capital punishment using Glossip’s case to highlight the risk of sentencing innocent people to death.

This report contains material from the Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.