The Supreme Court will decide *Glossip v. Oklahoma*, a closely watched capital punishment case that has kept Richard Glossip on death row for nearly three decades. The case, argued October 9, 2024, addresses fundamental questions about the reliability of witness testimony in death penalty cases and the adequacy of legal representation in capital trials.

The case stems from the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese, who was beaten to death with a baseball bat at an Oklahoma hotel he owned and Glossip managed. Justin Sneed, the admitted killer, claimed that Glossip had asked him to murder Van Treese because Glossip wanted to steal Van Treese's money. Glossip has maintained his innocence throughout the legal proceedings.

The prosecution's case against Glossip relied almost entirely on Sneed's testimony. After Glossip refused a plea deal that would have spared his life, Sneed was then offered and accepted a deal to testify against Glossip in exchange for avoiding the death penalty, receiving a life sentence instead. This testimony became the only direct evidence connecting Glossip to the murder.

This case involves complex post-conviction relief proceedings rather than a direct appeal. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals overturned Glossip's conviction on his first appeal due to ineffective assistance of counsel, finding that his trial attorney failed to adequately investigate and present evidence that could have undermined Sneed's credibility. However, Glossip was retried and again sentenced to death.

During the retrial proceedings, significant concerns emerged about Sneed's mental state and the reliability of his testimony. Evidence suggested that Sneed had been taking lithium and had psychiatric treatment, information that was not fully explored during the original trial. When questioned during retrial proceedings, Sneed denied taking lithium or seeing a psychiatrist, raising questions about the truthfulness of his testimony.

The Supreme Court case also involves jurisdictional complexities under the independent and adequate state ground doctrine, as the Court must determine whether it has authority to review the state court's post-conviction findings. The case raises fundamental questions about the reliability of co-defendant testimony in death penalty cases, particularly when such testimony is the primary evidence supporting a capital conviction.