SCOTUS Vacates Capital Defendant’s Conviction in Glossip v. Oklahoma Finding that the State’s Failure to Correct Its Star Witness’s False Testimony Denied Due Process

Contributed by Angela Reaney

In Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), the United States Supreme Court held that due process requires reversal where the state failed to correct known false evidence and the error could have played a role in the conviction. Applying that principle, the Supreme Court reversed Richard Glossip’s capital murder conviction in Glossip v. Oklahoma, 604 U.S. 226 (2025), finding that the state’s failure to correct its star witness’s known false testimony denied Glossip due process.

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 him. 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 Glossip’s motive. Sneed 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 testified that he also stabbed Van Treese. 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 also 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 of Sneed’s bipolar diagnosis and lithium prescriptions.

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 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 prescriptions because she had his medical records and a competency evaluation in which he reported the lithium prescriptions. Moreover, her notes contained details of the prescription. She, therefore, was required to correct Sneed’s contrary testimony.

The due process violation was material. Sneed’s testimony was the only evidence of Glossip’s guilt. Moreover, 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 Supreme Court explained that the state court misapplied Napue when it found that the prosecution could not “knowingly conceal[]” the lithium prescription because the defense had knowledge. 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 Illinois and federal direct appeal and postconviction cases. She can be reached at areaney@reaneylaw.com.