Oklahoma GOP AG begs SCOTUS to prevent execution of innocent man

[jimmy olsen]

Great system we have here. 
https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1653135757916119060

BREAKING: Oklahoma GOP AG to #SCOTUS about Richard Glossip's case: "Absent this Court's intervention, an execution will move forward under circumstances where the Attorney General has already confessed error—a result that would be unthinkable." Background:

https://www.lawdork.com/p/oklahoma-glossip-florida-nonunanimous-juries#%C2%A7oklahomas-top-criminal-court-ignores-republican-ag-in-glossip-case

Oklahoma court won't stop Glossip execution, Florida makes new death sentences easier

So long as the death penalty exists, we are allowing the state to make biased, error-ridden, life-and-death decisions.

CHRIS GEIDNER
APR 21, 2023
So long as we allow states and the federal government to pursue death sentences and carry out executions, we are allowing the state to make biased, error-ridden, life-and-death decisions. And, yes, at times, the state will get it wrong and the government will kill an innocent person in our name.

I could go down the dark path of our criminal legal system and the many, many ways it has proven itself untrustworthy of killing people. Over time, I have covered many examples of that — and will continue to do so in the future.

Two decisions on Thursday alone are instructive, one in Oklahoma showing judges' unwillingness to face the error in an existing death sentence and the other in Florida making future erroneous death sentences much more likely.

Oklahoma's top criminal court ignores Republican AG in Glossip case

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals on Thursday denied Richard Glossip's request to vacate his conviction — despite the fact that the state's Republican attorney general agreed with the request from Glossip's lawyers.

Attorney General Gentner Drummond, elected last fall, had agreed with Glossip's lawyers that his conviction — including his death sentence — should not stand.

Glossip currently faces an execution date of May 18. In addition to denying the request to vacate the conviction, the Court of Criminal Appeals — the highest court in the state for criminal matters — denied the joint request for a stay of execution.

None of the five judges — all former prosecutors, Kyle Barry highlighted — dissented from today's decision. (One judge wrote separately, agreeing with the court's judgment.)

Judge David Lewis wrote the court's opinion, dismissing Glossip's claims in quick succession. An illustrative example comes in response to the key admission from Drummond about the key witness in the case. Lewis wrote:

425 Glossip claims that the State failed to disclose evidence of Justin Sneed's mental health treatment and that Sneed lied about his mental health treatment to the jury. Though the State in its response now concedes that this alleged false testimony combined with other unspecified cumulative errors warrant post-conviction relief, the concession alone cannot overcome the limitations on successive post-conviction review.® See 22 0.8.Supp.2022, § 1089(D)(8). The State's concession is not based in law or fact.

To justify ignoring the state's admission, Lewis wrote:

26 This issue is one that could have been presented | previously, because the factual basis for the claim was ascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence, and the facts arc not sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for the alleged error, no reasonable fact finder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense or would have rendered the penalty of death.
While this reads like a jumble of meaninglessness, this, ultimately, is how a lot of late death penalty claims are addressed.

To translate: "If you could have raised the claim earlier, because you could have found the underlying information earlier, then you can't bring it now. And, also, even if you brought the claim early enough, if you can't prove that the information would almost certainly have changed the outcome, we're still going to allow the state to execute you."

This standard completely ignores the insufficient (and sometimes bad) legal help that people accused of even capital crimes often have early on in their cases — and how it is even more difficult for those people to get the level of legal help necessary post-conviction to find the information necessary to bring claims in a timely manner.

Here, though, many people, including many Republicans, agree that Glossip's trial was a bad one — including the Republican attorney general. Glossip has maintained his innocence. Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt has granted Glossip multiple reprieves of execution.

As Drummond wrote in his filing, his review of all available material, including a new independent counsel's review of the case, led him to the conclusion that "Glossip's trial was unfair and unreliable."

He continued:

Moreover, in deciding to take this difficult stance, the State has carefully considered the 'voluminous record in this case, the constitutional principles at stake, and the interests ofjustice. While the State has previously opposed relieffor Glossip, it has changed its position based on a careful review of the new information that has come to light, including its own Independent Counsel's review of the case. Given the admonition that the State has a duty to "use every legitimate means to bring about ajust" result (Viereck, supra, at 248), it urges this Court to give credence to the State's consideredjudgment. See Escobar v. Texas, 143 S. Ct. 557 (2023) (mem.) (vacating judgment of Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that refused to give effect to State's confessionoferror in successor habeas petition). Accordingly, the State requeststhattheCourt vacate Glossip's conviction and thatthe case 'be remanded to the district court.

This should be an obvious case to pull back and, at the very least, not kill the man.

Despite that, the Court of Criminal Appeals denied the request, with Lewis writing for the court that "we have found no legal or factual ground which would require relief in this case."

Shortly after the decision, one of Glossip's lawyers, Don Knight, said in a statement that the lawyers would be seeking U.S. Supreme Court review:

Since the State now agrees that the only witness to allege that Mr. Glossip was involved in this crime cannot be believed, it is unconscionable for the court to attempt to force the State to move forward with his execution. We cannot permit this longstanding injustice to go unchallenged and will be filing for review of this manifestly unjust ruling in the United States Supreme Court. We ask all Oklahomans who believe in justice to stand with Mr. Glossip, and the State of Oklahoma, to stop this wrongful judicial execution, and grant Mr. Glossip the new trial he so rightly deserves.

Drummond, while not declaring his next steps, also issued a strong statement:

Drummond statement on OCCA's Glossip ruling OKLAHOMA CITY (April 20, 2023) – Attorney General Gentner Drummond made the following remarks today after the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) denied his motion to vacate the conviction of death row inmate Richard Glossip and remand the case back to district court. In addition, the Court denied the State's motion for a stay of execution.  "While I respect the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion, I am not willing to allow an execution to proceed despite so many doubts. Ensuring the integrity of the death penalty demands complete certainty. I will thoroughly review the ruling and consider what steps should be taken to ensure justice."  ###

Law Dork will monitor future developments.