In 1997, Glossip was a motel manager. The maintenance man, Justin Sneed, killed the motel owner. Sneed implicated Glossip, making a deal to escape the death penalty. Glossip’s past trials have all been deemed unconstitutional. Yet he was on death row for 27 years and had his last meal three times.
The Supreme Court found:
- Sneed lied under oath; prosecutors knew and failed to correct.
- Sneed discussed “recanting my testimony,” and “it was a mistake.”
- The State destroyed evidence.
- Prosecutors withheld boxes (8 total) containing evidence favorable to Glossip.
- As a former U.S. attorney and federal prosecutor (obtaining convictions for the Oklahoma City bombing), I believe withholding evidence and allowing witness perjury to be a disgrace to the profession, victims and their families.
Prosecutors, until 2022, denied access to Boxes 1-7. They removed material, creating Box 8. In 2023, newly elected Attorney General Genter Drummond released Box 8. Drummond declined to defend the prosecutorial misconduct revealed. A bold decision, and the only fair one an ethical prosecutor could make.
Drummond should be commended for recognizing Glossip’s conviction was unlawfully obtained. Instead, the Oklahoma District Attorneys Council advocated for Glossip’s execution. The Supreme Court rejected that, ruling the tainted conviction could not stand.
Until recently, Drummond indicated that Glossip was not guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt:
- April 1, 2023: “We are in agreement” to release Glossip on accessory after the fact (not murder) and time served.
- April 24, 2023: “Although he may be guilty of first-degree murder, the record (complete with the new evidence that the jury did not hear nor consider in rendering its verdict and death sentence) does not support that he is guilty of first-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.”
- June 2023: If Glossip’s case was remanded, “I predict it will probably be pled out.”
- Oct. 9, 2024: “Our prosecutors elicited perjury here … without [Sneed’s] testimony, there's no way to get the conviction of murder”.
The Supreme Court found Sneed had lied to the jury, prosecutors knew this yet failed to correct, and “[a]dditional prosecutorial misconduct, such as violating the rule of sequestration, destroying evidence, and withholding witness statements, further undermines confidence in the verdict.”
Nevertheless, in June, Drummond announced he would re-try Glossip for murder. We must ask:
What changed for Drummond to now pursue a third murder prosecution?
A re-trial using Sneed is troubling given the court’s ruling that “Sneed was willing to lie to [the jury] under oath.” Drummond is running for governor, and I would hate to think politics, or his electability have anything to do with this about-face.
Drummond publicly vowed Glossip “will receive a fair trial this time around,” but how can any trial at this stage achieve fairness?
The grave prosecutorial misconduct has made fairness virtually impossible. A new trial cannot make a lying witness suddenly trustworthy, or bring back deceased witnesses to cross-examine them about state-withheld evidence. Neither can a new trial recreate destroyed evidence. These are lasting, corrosive effects.
Does taking another crack at Glossip after prosecutors knowingly used perjured testimony and concealed documents align with our community’s conscience of fair play?
Drummond seems uninterested in holding accountable the Oklahoma County prosecutors whose conduct was condemned by the Supreme Court, stating in a news conference:
“I have no interest in pursuing prosecutorial misconduct on a 25-year case.” Shouldn’t that principle equally apply to the defendant if fairness is to be achieved?
Announcing you will not prosecute misconduct does not discourage future wrongdoing — it encourages it.
Compounding this is Drummond’s hand-picked team for retrial. Several are former Oklahoma County prosecutors; public information also shows that two members, including the lead prosecutor, denied access in 2022 to the very boxes that led to the Supreme Court reversal. We cannot overlook that Oklahoma would have executed a man had those boxes not been released.
Why not select neutral, unconnected prosecutors to handle the case?
Fairness cannot mean putting people in charge who have apparent conflicts of interest. They could face potential discipline for their actions, creating an incentive to pursue a conviction to cleanse their past misdeeds.
Drummond appointed a prosecutor from the DA’s Council — the group that opposed overturning the conviction, denied any prosecutorial misconduct and called for execution. I implore Drummond to reconsider the irreversible impacts of the state’s wrongdoing that cannot be erased with a new trial.
Drummond has authority to appoint a neutral special counsel, similar to my appointment in 2019 to an investigation of David Boren when the AG’s office had conflicts of interest. Respectfully, this current team’s prior entanglements are further contaminating this retrial.
Efforts to reach Drummond were unsuccessful.
“I am committed to ensuring the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial,” Drummond stated. Richard Glossip has had two unconstitutional trials. It appears the attorney general and his hand-picked team (rife with conflicts) are well on their way to a third.
Source: oklahoman.com, Patrick Ryan, September 08, 2025. Patrick Ryan is a military veteran and was U.S. attorney for Oklahoma City from 1995-1999 and prosecuted Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. He is a former president of the Oklahoma County Bar Association and is a director at Ryan Whaley law firm. Ryan received his law degree from the University of Oklahoma.
"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."
— Oscar Wilde
Comments
Post a Comment
Pro-DP comments will not be published.