Attorney General Gentner Drummond expressed satisfaction with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to vacate the conviction of Richard Glossip, an Oklahoma death row inmate. "Our justice system is greatly diminished when an individual is convicted without a fair trial, but today we can celebrate that a great injustice has been swept away," Drummond stated. He acknowledged the court's validation of his concerns regarding the prosecution and emphasized the opportunity for justice.
The ruling in Glossip v. Oklahoma determined that Glossip did not receive a fair trial, necessitating a new one. Drummond remarked, "While the Supreme Court has issued its final ruling, our work here in Oklahoma is not done." He committed to reviewing the ruling and consulting with family members to ensure justice for all involved. Despite maintaining that he does not believe Glossip is innocent, Drummond recognized that it was undeniable Glossip did not receive a fair trial.
Drummond initiated an independent review of the case upon assuming office as attorney general in 2023. This review revealed that crucial documents had been withheld from Glossip’s defense team, known as “Box 8.” Following this discovery, Drummond filed a motion with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) to overturn Glossip’s conviction and return the case to district court. However, despite acknowledging errors, OCCA upheld both conviction and sentence.
The case escalated to the U.S. Supreme Court, which supported Drummond’s finding of a Napue violation due to false testimony affecting Glossip's right to a fair trial.
Glossip was charged as an accessory in January 1997 after Barry Van Treese's murder at an Oklahoma City motel. Justin Sneed confessed to killing Van Treese and testified against Glossip in exchange for avoiding the death penalty himself. Sneed claimed falsely during testimony about his mental health treatment; prosecutors knew this but allowed it.
The Supreme Court noted that Sneed’s testimony was critical evidence against Glossip: "Because Sneed’s testimony was the only direct evidence of Glossip’s guilt, the jury’s assessment of Sneed’s credibility was material and necessarily determinative." The court highlighted how correcting false statements could have impacted jury judgment by undermining Sneed's credibility.