An Oklahoma state court convicted Richard Glossip of murder and sentenced him to death. At trial, the State’s key witness, Justin Sneed, gave false testimony about his psychiatric treatment and medication use. Prosecutors learned of the falsity but did not correct it. Glossip moved for postconviction relief, arguing that the failure to correct false testimony violated his due process rights under Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) rejected his claim, holding that the State’s concession that Sneed lied was “not based in law or fact” and that Glossip’s claims were procedurally barred by Oklahoma’s Post-Conviction Procedures Act (PCPA). The Supreme Court stayed Glossip’s execution and granted certiorari to consider Glossip’s Napue and Brady claims, as well as whether the OCCA’s reliance on the PCPA provided an adequate and independent state-law ground barring federal review.
In addressing the independent state-law jurisdictional argument, the Court explained that the state court’s reasoning necessarily applied the Napue materiality test, a federal constitutional standard, subjecting the decision to Supreme Court review.
On the merits, the Court held that prosecutors violated due process by failing to correct false testimony from Sneed. Because Sneed’s testimony was the only direct evidence of Glossip’s guilt, the jury’s assessment of Sneed’s credibility was necessarily determinative. The Court concluded under Napue that the failure to correct Sneed’s knowingly false testimony required a new trial. Having granted relief on that basis, the Court declined to reach Glossip’s separate Brady claim.
Justice Barrett concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing on jurisdiction and the existence of a due process violation, but argued that the proper remedy was to remand for the state court to decide relief in the first instance. Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justice Alito and by Justice Barrett in part, contending that the Court lacked jurisdiction and that, even if jurisdiction existed, no relief was warranted.
Certiorari to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Opinion by Sotomayor, joined by Roberts, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Jackson, and Barrett (in part)
Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part by Barrett
Dissenting opinion by Thomas, joined by Alito and Barrett (in part)
Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Click here to read the opinion.