WASHINGTON — In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court overturned the murder conviction of Richard Glossip, a 62-year-old Oklahoma death row inmate. The court’s ruling, which came on Tuesday, hinged on the revelation that a key witness lied in court and prosecutors withheld crucial information about him. This decision marks a rare victory for a death row inmate at the conservative court, where such outcomes are uncommon.

The court was divided 5-3 on the matter, with conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch not participating. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the court, stated that the prosecution “violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony.” As a result, “Glossip is entitled to a new trial,” she wrote.

Glossip, who has been on death row since 1998, was convicted of arranging the 1997 murder of his boss at the Oklahoma City motel where they worked. He has faced imminent execution on several occasions, most recently in May 2023 when the Supreme Court stepped in to prevent his execution.

Glossip’s latest appeal received a significant boost when the state attorney general, Republican Gentner Drummond, agreed that the conviction was unsound and asked the court to rule in his favor. The conviction relied heavily on the testimony of key witness Justin Sneed, who carried out the 1997 murder. Sneed, who pleaded guilty and avoided a death sentence, testified that Glossip had hired him to kill motel owner Barry Van Treese.

The appeal revolved around claims that prosecutors withheld information about Sneed and that he gave false testimony at trial. Prosecutors knew but did not disclose at Glossip’s second trial in 2004 that Sneed had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and prescribed lithium after his arrest. Sneed also falsely testified that he had never seen a psychiatrist.

“Because Sneed’s testimony was the only direct evidence of Glossip’s guilt of capital murder, the jury’s assessment of Sneed’s credibility was necessarily determinative here,” Sotomayor wrote.

— Justice Sonia Sotomayor

After an investigation, Drummond concluded that because Glossip’s conviction rested significantly on Sneed’s credibility, it should not be sustained. The state has stopped short of agreeing with Glossip’s claim that he is innocent.

In her opinion, Sotomayor agreed with Drummond, writing that prosecutors “knew Sneed’s statements were false” when he testified.

“Prosecutors should have corrected the record, but if they had done so, it would have undermined Sneed’s credibility, Sotomayor wrote.

“Hence, there is a reasonable likelihood that correcting Sneed’s testimony would have affected the judgment of the jury,” she added.

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority that rarely intervenes to prevent executions from taking place, but occasionally steps in when there has been a clear miscarriage of justice. Despite Drummond’s findings, an Oklahoma appeals court upheld the death sentence last year, and the state’s pardon and parole board voted against granting Glossip clemency.

The original prosecutors who had worked on the case, Connie Smothermon and Gary Ackley, disputed Drummond’s account and said they had not been properly consulted during the investigation. They wrote a letter questioning the new findings that was attached to an amicus brief filed by relatives of Van Treese that urged the court to uphold Glossip’s conviction.

The Supreme Court previously signaled an interest in Glossip’s case in May 2023 by stepping in to prevent him from being executed. The court also blocked Glossip’s execution in 2015 in separate litigation over the state’s lethal injection procedure.

Two conservative justices, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, said they would have ruled against Glossip. Another, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, said she agreed with most of Sotomayor’s opinion, but would have sent the case back to Oklahoma courts instead of throwing out the conviction altogether.

“The Supreme Court, Thomas wrote in a dissenting opinion, ‘lacks the power’ to override the decisions of state courts and officials just because the attorney general switched positions.

“Instead the court stretches the law at every turn’ in order to rule in Glossip’s favor, he added.

— Justice Clarence Thomas

This decision underscores the importance of transparency and integrity in the legal process. The Supreme Court’s intervention highlights the need for prosecutors to disclose all relevant information to ensure a fair trial. The case also raises questions about the reliability of witness testimony and the ethical responsibilities of prosecutors.

As the legal process continues, it remains to be seen whether prosecutors will choose to retry Glossip. The decision to retry or drop the case will have significant implications for the legal system and public trust in the justice process.

For now, Glossip’s fate hangs in the balance, but the Supreme Court’s ruling has provided a glimmer of hope for a man who has spent more than two decades on death row. The case serves as a reminder that justice, while sometimes elusive, is not beyond the reach of the legal system.