Facts
- In 1998, Richard Eugene Glossip was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Barry Van Treese, an Oklahoma City motel owner.
- Justin Sneed, a motel employee, admitted that he killed Van Treese but testified that Glossip asked him to do it.
- Glossip’s first conviction was overturned by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA), and the case was retried.
- At the retrial, Sneed’s testimony that Glossip solicited the murder was the only direct evidence linking Glossip to the killing.
- The prosecution portrayed Sneed as someone with no tendency toward violence except when urged by Glossip, making Sneed’s credibility central to the State’s case.
- During Sneed’s testimony, the prosecutor brought out that Sneed regularly used illegal drugs and that he had been prescribed lithium; Sneed testified he did not know why he was taking lithium.
- Nearly two decades after the retrial, Oklahoma disclosed eight boxes of documents that had not been provided to the defense earlier.
- Those documents showed Sneed had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and had been prescribed lithium by a psychiatrist.
- Oklahoma’s Attorney General concluded that the prosecutor knew Sneed’s testimony about lithium was false or misleading and failed to correct it, which the Attorney General viewed as a due process violation under Napue v. Illinois.
- Glossip filed another post-conviction petition supported by the State, but the OCCA denied relief, holding the claims were procedurally barred and also reasoning that no Napue violation occurred because defense counsel knew or should have known Sneed was taking lithium.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the OCCA’s judgment.
Issues
- Whether due process is violated when the prosecution knowingly allows false or misleading testimony from a key witness to go uncorrected.
- Whether a court may deny a Napue claim because the defense knew or should have known the testimony was false or misleading.
- Whether the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the OCCA’s post-conviction judgment denying relief in these circumstances.
Decision
- The Supreme Court held it had jurisdiction to review the OCCA’s judgment.
- The Court held that the prosecution violated due process under Napue by knowingly failing to correct Sneed’s false or misleading testimony concerning why he was prescribed lithium and his related mental-health treatment.
- The Court rejected the OCCA’s view that the defense’s knowledge (or potential knowledge) excused the State’s constitutional duty to correct false testimony.
- Applying Napue’s materiality standard, the Court concluded there was a reasonable likelihood the uncorrected false testimony could have affected the jury’s judgment, given Sneed’s role as the State’s key witness and the importance of his credibility.
- The Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, leaving Oklahoma to decide whether to retry Glossip.
Legal Principles
- Due process is violated when the State knowingly uses false evidence, including testimony, or allows false or misleading testimony to stand uncorrected.
- Under Napue v. Illinois, relief is required when there is a reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the jury’s judgment.
- The prosecution has an affirmative constitutional duty to correct false or misleading testimony it knows to be false; that duty is not eliminated because the defense could have discovered the truth.
- When a state court judgment turns on a federal constitutional ruling (including a mistaken view of a federal due process standard), the U.S. Supreme Court may review that judgment.
Conclusion
Glossip v. Oklahoma held that Oklahoma violated due process by failing to correct its key witness’s false or misleading testimony about his lithium prescription and related psychiatric basis, and because the witness supplied the only direct evidence tying Glossip to the murder-for-hire theory, the Court found a reasonable likelihood the falsehood affected the verdict and reversed and remanded for proceedings that may include a new trial.