al Jeez: Will Oklahoma put an innocent man to death?

[Larry]

While looking for information on another matter, I wound up at al Jeez.  And one of the headlines in the margin (this one) caught my eye.  (Because Oklahoma is probably my "native state".) 

 

Will Oklahoma put an innocent man to death?

 

Background. 

 

In 1997, Barry von Teese owned a motel.  Glossip was the hotel manager.  Justin Sneed performed maintenance at the hotel, in exchange for room and board. 

 

Sneed has confessed to beating Van Teese to death with a baseball bat.  But, under interrogation, he was offered a plea deal to avoid the death penalty, if he would testify against the hotel manager, Glossip.  Sneed did so. 

 

Glossip has been convicted of hiring Sneed to kill Van Teese. 

 

his conviction is based almost entirely on the testimony of the person who has confessed to beating him to death, and who received a reduced sentance for doing so. 

 

He's actually been convicted twice.  Glossip appealed his conviction, based on inadequate counsel, based, among other things, on the fact that his defense did not show the jury the video of Sneed being pressured to testify against him.  (Sneed, apparently, has changed his story several times.  For example, the amount that he claims Glossip promised to pay him keeps going up.) 

 

Glossip won his appeal, and was granted a second trial.  At which his defense team did not show the jury the video.  And was convicted a second time. 

 

(I have to confess.  This being convicted twice thing does make me wonder if maybe I'm reading only one side of the story.) 

 

Glossip has now had numerous appeals.  Apparently a box of new evidence was recently discovered, which neither of his defense teams had been told about.  (An Oklahoma Appeals Court rejected his last appeal, apparently ruling that the new evidence wasn't new enough.) 

 

He has twice been given his last meal, and received a last minute reprieve.  (The latest came one hour after he was supposed to be executed.)  This latest reprieve was granted, not because of questions about his case, but because the state discovered that they had apparently decided to use a different drug, to execute him, than what they told the Supreme Court they were going to use. 

 

Some other sites about the case: 

 

New Yorker:  Richard Glossip and the End of the Death Penalty

 

If the Supreme Court abolishes the death penalty soon, which Justice Antonin Scalia said, last week, that he “wouldn’t be surprised” to see, the case of Richard Glossip is likely to be a significant point of reference in accounts of how it happened. 

 

The state of Oklahoma is scheduled to execute Glossip by lethal injection this afternoon. He was sentenced to death for a murder that, the record in the case makes clear, he did not commit. He had never been arrested before. He had no history of violence. His conviction was based on the testimony of the murderer, a man named Justin Sneed, who confessed to using a baseball bat to bludgeon the victim to death. Sneed claimed that Glossip had pressed him to commit the murder and, in exchange for his testimony against Glossip, which was coaxed by a police interrogator, he got a sentence of life in prison rather than death.

 

 

The second reason that this case is likely to be a point of reference in any narrative of death-penalty abolition is the way that it has played out in an Oklahoma state court this month. After his loss at the Supreme Court, Glossip was scheduled to be executed on September 16th, but his lawyers asked the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals for a stay of execution so that they could put together a case based on newly obtained accounts from two witnesses, which, they said, destroyed the credibility of the testimony implicating Glossip. The court granted a stay “in order for this court to give fair consideration to the materials included,” but, on Monday, decided not to let a state trial court consider the new evidence. It ended the stay, so the state can execute Glossip today, unless the Supreme Court intervenes. 

 

The opinion for the majority in the state appeals-court decision is technical, and this sentence is key: “The claims do not fall within the guidelines of the post-conviction procedure act allowing this Court to consider the merits or grant relief.” The opinion said, basically, that the new evidence wasn’t new and that Glossip’s lawyers were raising issues already raised and rejected on a previous appeal. A dissent pointed out that the failure to review his claims could be a miscarriage of justice: Glossip is about to be executed and “the State has no interest in executing an actually innocent man.” 

 

The ruling has nothing to do with the merits of the case. It has everything to do with the state’s attempt to bring death-penalty cases to an end because of “the legal principle of finality of judgment,” as the majority opinion put it—even if that means denying a hearing that might exonerate an innocent man. . . .

 

 

Thought it might be thought provoking. 

 

[TheGoodBits]

Semi-related... John Grisham's only nonfiction book, The Innocent Man, is about a guy in Oklahoma who was exonerated after 11 years on death row. Similarly sketchy police work, just wanted someone to convict, etc. Been awhile but I recall it was a good (and disturbing) read.

One of the key things that is wrong with the death penalty is the inability to make amends for false convictions. I'm not personally above the sense of needing vengeance, but our laws probably should be. Especially with the very real occurrences of killing innocent people.

[Kilmer17]

I hadn't heard that from Scalia. Woah.

[Larry]

Actually, that New Yorker article I linked contains a quote from a Bryer dissent (I think it's a dissent from the case Glossip filed, in which he and three other death row inmates argued that the lethal injection protocol has produced unconstitutionally painful and cruel executions.  (That appeal was rejected by the USSC, 5-4, at the end of last term.  A part of their reasons for rejecting that appeal was that well, the plaintiffs didn't show that there was a better way to kill people.) 

 

Bryer, apparently, wrote a massive dissent, not just against the particular lethal injection protocol, but against the whole death penalty.  the part that's quoted in the New Yorker was: 

 

  Researchers have calculated that courts (or State Governors) are 130 times more likely to exonerate a defendant where a death sentence is at issue. They are nine times more likely to exonerate where a capital murder, rather than a noncapital murder, is at issue.

 

    Why is that so? To some degree, it must be because the law that governs capital cases is more complex. To some degree, it must reflect the fact that courts scrutinize capital cases more closely. But, to some degree, it likely also reflects a greater likelihood of an initial wrongful conviction. How could that be so? In the view of researchers who have conducted these studies, it could be so because the crimes at issue in capital cases are typically horrendous murders, and thus accompanied by intense community pressure on police, prosecutors, and jurors to secure a conviction. This pressure creates a greater likelihood of convicting the wrong person.

 

 

(The italics were in the New Yorker, so I assume they were in Breyer's dissent.) 

[visionary]

Seems to be a multiple executions up in the air right now.  

 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/01/alfredo-prieto-serial-killer-virginia-execution

Attorneys for serial killer in Virginia push to block Thursday night execution

 

The execution of a convicted serial killer was in limbo on Thursday as a federal judge in Virginia considered arguments over the lethal injection drugs.

 

Attorneys for Alfredo Prieto, 49, want his execution delayed as they seek more information about the drugs, which were obtained from Texas’s prison system, to ensure they will not bring about a painful death.

 

A lawyer for the Virginia attorney general’s office said there was no evidence anything was wrong with the drugs and argued it was in the public interest, as well as the interest of the families of Prieto’s victims, to go ahead with the execution at 9pm on Thursday.

 

US district court judge Henry E Hudson said after a hearing on Thursday that he will issue a ruling shortly.

 

Prieto, a native of El Salvador, was on death row in California for raping and murdering a 15-year-old girl when DNA evidence linked him to the rape and murder of Rachael Raver and the slaying of her boyfriend, Warren Fulton III. Authorities have linked Prieto to several other killings in California and Virginia but he was never prosecuted because he had already been sentenced to death.

 

A federal judge approved an order on Wednesday temporarily blocking Prieto’s execution, and then the case was transferred to Hudson at the state’s request.

 

https://twitter.com/AP

BREAKING: Supreme Court refuses to halt execution of serial killer; judge still weighing separate appeal.
5:53 PM

[Larry]

Well, at least it looks like visionary's killer is guilty.  At least DNA seems to say so. 

 

And I have to say, I don't have a problem with the notion of a death penalty.  not because I think it's a deterrent, or to reduce prison crowding, or any such reason.  But just because I think there are some crimes, for which death feels like justice, to me. 

[twa]

bring back firing squads to resolve the lethal injection drugs issue.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I am extremely pro death penalty. But I'd like to see a higher level of evidence required for it. I'd also like to see the death penalty added to most crimes where you are punished to "life without possibility of parole." At that point why keep them around. I'd also add it to serial molesters, etc. But when the evidence is indisputable I'd like to see the death penalty expedited.

[grhqofb5]

bring back firing squads to resolve the lethal injection drugs issue.

 Guillotine would actually be less cruel, at least from a physical pain standpoint. Pre-death psychological suffering due to suspense can be taken into account too I guess. Perhaps the solution then would be to strap em to the table and put in the needles so they believe they are getting the injection, then drop a secret guillotine in from the ceiling.

[Renegade7]

You had me at "secret guillotine" : )

But seriously, I've said it before, that if there's doubt or its a close trial, I'm fine with execution being taken off the table to give chances for appeals. If its pretty unanimous, like a mass shooting, they absolutely should be executed. We're thinking too much on this one, and I would support the removal of public viewing so we can go back to less expensive means of execution, like firing squad, hanging, and even the guillotine.

[skinsmarydu]

Ari Melber got a rare, on-camera interview with Justice Breyer, and he discussed the death penalty & his dissent.

 

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/breyer-offers-window-on-death-penalty-views-537754691759

[Burgold]

Semi-related... John Grisham's only nonfiction book, The Innocent Man, is about a guy in Oklahoma who was exonerated after 11 years on death row. Similarly sketchy police work, just wanted someone to convict, etc. Been awhile but I recall it was a good (and disturbing) read.

One of the key things that is wrong with the death penalty is the inability to make amends for false convictions. I'm not personally above the sense of needing vengeance, but our laws probably should be. Especially with the very real occurrences of killing innocent people.

I think you bring up a key question. Studies show that cap punishment is not a deterrent. If it isn't, then is it a form of punishment or societal retribution and are we okay with that?

 

Personally, I think there are a few people who are so monstrous, so irredeemable, that they could never be entrusted in public again. These people are so heinous and dangerous that perhaps a death penalty makes sense... for their prison sentence is in its way a living death sentence. At the same time, I think that number is very, very, very small. Nevertheless, because of that I wouldn't eliminate the death penalty altogether, but I would increase the standards and make it one that is almost impossible to reach.

 

There have been too many people on Death Row who have been found innocent. More, studies have shown that the sentence is far more likely to be given out to someone if they are a certain race. That is, if it was the same crime, carried out the same way, and impacting the same number of people a black suspect is significantly more likely to receive a death penalty than a white one. On top of demographics, another reason to reduce or eliminate it is that it is very expensive to keep someone on Death Row and the process is slow. It takes many years to go from a death penalty sentencing to the actual execution. So, the best thing to do,in my book, is to all but eliminate it, but as I said above make the threshold very, very high.

You had me at "secret guillotine" : ) But seriously, I've said it before, that if there's doubt or its a close trial, I'm fine with execution being taken off the table to give chances for appeals. If its pretty unanimous, like a mass shooting, they absolutely should be executed. We're thinking too much on this one, and I would support the removal of public viewing so we can go back to less expensive means of execution, like firing squad, hanging, and even the guillotine.

I will say that when I heard about a recent capitol punishment case that was suspended because the drugs were deemed "unsafe" I found it preposterous. 

 

You have decided as a court and society that this man has done such a grievous wrong that he deserves to die. Will your unsafe drug make him more dead?  I also don't necessarily buy into the notion that it needs to be perfectly painless and humane. If it's a death penalty, then it's a death penalty and I don't know that it should be a comfortable experience for the convicted or the jury and society that has to watch it.

[nonniey]

...... 

 

And I have to say, I don't have a problem with the notion of a death penalty.  not because I think it's a deterrent, or to reduce prison crowding, or any such reason.  But just because I think there are some crimes, for which death feels like justice, to me.

That is what the Anti-penalty crowd just don't get about the supporters of the Death penalty. To us it is a matter of Justice and banning the death penalty is banning Justice.

BTW looked this up on prodeathpenalty.com (a site unfortunately not regularly updated anymore). It added some facts that your article's writer probably deliberately left out (not much but some) - "Glossip only admitted his involvement in the murder “after the fact.” He admitted he was afraid to tell the police what he knew and admitted he assisted Sneed by helping conceal the murder scene."

To me that would lead me to think it was likely that Gossip is guilty but if that was all we had I probably would not have convicted him. We just don't know going by news articles what the facts are and agenda driven articles like the one you posted certainly should not sway someone - one way or another.

I remember a case in Texas that Geraldo and other opponents were championing. Their argument was that there was only one witness and all the other witnesses claimed that they couldn't positively ID the killer. What they left out was that over a period of 15-20 years the other witnesses had been pressured, and yes intimidated, into changing their story to say they could no longer ID the killer (during trial they helped convict him). Additionally they (death penalty opponents) left out that killer was separately convicted of 2 other attempted murders that used the exact same method of robbery, in the same area, over in the same 2 week period that the murder occurred. (Armed robbery with a shot gun followed up by shooting the victim).

Bottom-line, you have to dig to see what facts are being deliberately left out when you read opinion pieces like this.

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/pending/14/nov14.htm

"On January 7, 1997, the body of Barry Van Treese was discovered in Room 102 of the Best Budget Inn in Oklahoma City. Barry had been severely beaten and died as a result of blood loss and blunt force trauma to his head. Following the discovery of the body, Oklahoma City police detectives interviewed Richard Eugene Glossip, who was the manager of the Best Budget Inn. They also interviewed Justin Sneed, who was charged as a co-defendant in this case and who worked for Glossip as a maintenance man in exchange for a free room at the motel. At Glossip's trial, Sneed said he beat Van Treese to death by hitting him ten or fifteen times with a baseball bat. Sneed testified he killed Van Treese because Glossip asked him to do it. Sneed admitted he made an agreement with the State to testify against Glossip in exchange for a sentence of life without parole. At all times prior to trial and during trial, Glossip denied involvement in the murder of Barry Van Treese. Although his statements to police officers changed somewhat between his first and second police interview, he consistently denied encouraging or telling Sneed to commit the murder. Glossip only admitted his involvement in the murder “after the fact.” He admitted he was afraid to tell the police what he knew and admitted he assisted Sneed by helping conceal the murder scene. Barrt Alan Van Treese was born ......."

[Larry]

Yeah, I had read that Glossip had chosen not to contact police, and that he concealed things from them when the cops did show up.

Which certainly, to me, makes me assume that there's SOME guilt. (Barring some other evidence. I could also, say, see people doing freaky things to try to protect a friend. But I haven't seen anybody claim there was such a relationship).

But it seems like one heck of a leap, from "he concealed some things" to a capital murder conviction for planning the whole thing.

I ASSUME that the prosecution also presented some kind of motive, which I note is not mentioned here.

AND I have a problem with the notion that the cops/prosecutor gave the confessed killer a deal, to get him to testify against Glossip, just for no reason at all. There had to be something else.

[nonniey]

Semi-related... John Grisham's only nonfiction book, The Innocent Man, is about a guy in Oklahoma who was exonerated after 11 years on death row. Similarly sketchy police work, just wanted someone to convict, etc. Been awhile but I recall it was a good (and disturbing) read.

One of the key things that is wrong with the death penalty is the inability to make amends for false convictions. I'm not personally above the sense of needing vengeance, but our laws probably should be. Especially with the very real occurrences of killing innocent people.

If I were innocent of murder but convicted anyway, I'd want the death penalty, as my chances of getting exonerated exponentially improve.

[Mr. Sinister]

You had me at "secret guillotine" : )But seriously, I've said it before, that if there's doubt or its a close trial, I'm fine with execution being taken off the table to give chances for appeals. If its pretty unanimous, like a mass shooting, they absolutely should be executed. We're thinking too much on this one, and I would support the removal of public viewing so we can go back to less expensive means of execution, like firing squad, hanging, and even the guillotine.

Agreed