By: Angela Reaney

In Glossip v. Oklahoma, 604 U.S. 226 (2025), the Supreme Court vacated Richard Glossip’s capital murder conviction finding that the state’s failure to correct its star witness’s known false testimony denied Glossip due process. The decision relied on Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), holding that a conviction must be reversed when the state fails to correct known false evidence and the error was material in that it could have played a role in the conviction.

In 1997, Glossip managed a hotel in Oklahoma City that was owned by Barry Van Treese. Justin Sneed, a 19-year-old with a history of violence and methamphetamine use, lived in one of the hotel rooms in exchange for work at the hotel. One day, when Van Treese arrived to collect cash deposits, Sneed beat him to death with a baseball bat.

Glossip first told police that he did not know about the murder but admitted a day later that Sneed confessed to the murder. Before interviewing Sneed, officers told him that “before he made up his mind on anything, they wanted him to hear some of the things they had to say.” They proceeded to tell Sneed they knew he did not act alone and should not “take the whole thing.” They also told him that “everybody was making Sneed the scapegoat in this,” especially Glossip. Following the officers’ lead, Sneed told the officers that Glossip asked him to rob Van Treese and the robbery went wrong. Both Glossip and Sneed were charged with capital murder.

Glossip rejected a deal to avoid the death penalty in exchange for his testimony against Sneed. Sneed, however, accepted the same deal in exchange for his testimony against Glossip.

Glossip was tried twice. Sneed’s testimony was the only evidence tying Glossip to the murder. At the first trial, Sneed testified that Glossip asked him to kill Van Trease, but he did not know the motive. He admitted killing Van Treese with a baseball bat but denied using a knife. An Oklahoma court reversed finding Glossip was denied the effective assistance of counsel.

Before the second trial, the prosecutor learned that a medical examiner would testify that Van Treese was killed with a baseball bat and a knife. Without notice to the defense, Sneed changed his testimony and admitted to stabbing Van Treese, consistent with the medical examiner’s testimony. Sneed also denied ever seeing a psychiatrist or taking lithium before his arrest.

Years later, the State produced eight boxes of evidence that were never disclosed. The new evidence included a note from the prosecutor to Sneed’s attorney, dated before the second trial, stating she wanted to talk to Sneed about the medical examiner’s testimony that Van Treese was stabbed. The boxes also contained Sneed’s letters to the prosecutor stating that he wanted to recant and the prosecutor’s notes establishing that she knew about Sneed’s bipolar disorder and lithium prescription.

Based on the new evidence, Glossip filed a postconviction petition raising a Napue claim. Although the state agreed reversal was warranted, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Glossip’s conviction. The court found, in relevant part, that the prosecutor could not knowingly conceal information where the defense had knowledge.

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, finding that the prosecutor’s failure to correct Sneed amounted to a denial of due process. It noted that the prosecutor knew about Sneed’s bipolar diagnosis and lithium prescription because she had his medical records and a competency evaluation in which he reported the lithium prescription. Moreover, the prosecutor’s notes established that she knew about the prescription. She, therefore, was required to correct Sneed.

The Court also found that the due process violation was material. Sneed’s testimony was the only evidence of Glossip’s guilt, and the failure to correct Sneed’s testimony affected the jury’s credibility determination. The Court further noted that, although the prosecutor told the jury in closing that Sneed was harmless absent Glossip’s influence, evidence established that bipolar disorder combined with methamphetamine use could trigger impulsive violence.

The state court misapplied Napue when it found that the prosecution could not “knowingly conceal[]” the lithium prescription because the defense knew about it. The duty to correct false testimony, the Court explained, falls on the state and not the defense.

Oklahoma has elected to retry Glossip for noncapital murder. He is currently in jail awaiting retrial.

Angela Reaney is a criminal defense attorney focusing on direct appeal and postconviction cases.

Angela's Email: areaney@reaneylaw.com