The Supreme Court Must Stop Oklahoma From Executing Innocent Man | Opinion

As Republican members of the Oklahoma legislature, we strongly support the death penalty. We believe it to be an important component of a functioning criminal justice system—but not when it involves the execution of an innocent man based on a conviction obtained using knowingly false testimony. That is why we have joined the Oklahoma attorney general in urging the United States Supreme Court to send Richard Glossip’s case back to state court for a new trial.

Glossip was sentenced to death for the 1997 murder-for-hire of Barry Van Treese, based almost entirely on the testimony of Justin Sneed, the person who later admitted to killing Mr. Van Treese. Glossip, who had no criminal history before this case, has steadfastly maintained his innocence, even as he has faced nine execution dates.

Our constituents’ concerns about Glossip’s innocence led us to form a legislative committee to seek the assistance of international law firm Reed Smith to conduct our own investigation. After an incredibly thorough review, this investigation revealed appalling misconduct by the prosecution that included failing to adequately investigate the case, deliberately destroying key evidence, coaching Sneed’s testimony on more than one occasion, suppressing evidence important to the defense, and failing to correct Sneed’s false testimony. Sneed’s testimony was the foundation of the State’s case against Glossip, and evidence has since been discovered that Sneed wanted to recant that testimony but was not allowed to do so by his attorney.

When Attorney General Gentner Drummond took office in 2023, he responded to widespread concerns about Glossip’s case by convening a second independent investigation. That inquiry, like our own, revealed multiple instances of serious prosecutorial misconduct. AG Drummond then took the morally courageous position that any ethical prosecutor should when confronted with a death penalty conviction infected by grave constitutional violations: he confessed error and asked the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) to vacate Glossip’s conviction. Yet, shockingly, the OCCA refused to accept AG Drummond’s confession of error, leading to the proceeding now before the United States Supreme Court.

As we explained in our amicus brief, unless the Supreme Court intervenes, “the State of Oklahoma will execute Richard E. Glossip—even though two independent investigations commissioned by death penalty supporters have uncovered grave problems with Glossip’s conviction and death sentence, and even though Oklahoma’s chief law enforcement officer has confessed error and now joins Glossip in seeking vacatur of his death sentence.” An execution, we stressed, “would be a gross departure from fundamental constitutional protections and cast a shadow over the imposition of the death penalty more generally.” In other words, we cannot condone the state killing a citizen who did not receive a fair trial. It would be simply unacceptable.

In the Supreme Court, AG Drummond has joined Glossip in calling for a new trial. We urge the Supreme Court to agree that this is the only just result. As state legislators who care deeply about our state, Oklahoma cannot be seen by the nation as a state that will kill an innocent man who even the state itself admits did not receive a fair trial.

Kevin McDugle (R-Broken Arrow) represents Oklahoma’s 12th District in the State House of Representatives. JJ Humphrey (R-Lane) represents Oklahoma’s 19th District in the State House of Representatives.

The views expressed in this article are the writers’ own.