Oklahoma Lawmakers Urge New Review of Evidence Before Richard Glossip Is Executed for Murder
A newly unearthed letter suggests the primary witness against Glossip (and the actual killer) had regrets and made a “mistake.”

Dozens of state lawmakers in Oklahoma (several of whom support the death penalty) are urging the state to consider new evidence that might clear death row inmate Richard Glossip, who has been scheduled to be executed on September 22.
In a letter dated August 4, 61 state legislators urged Attorney General John O'Connor to join a request by Glossip for a new evidentiary hearing to look over some of the information compiled by national law firm Reed Smith that purports to show Glossip's possible innocence.
Glossip is on death row for the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese. Glossip did not actually kill Van Treese himself. Rather he was convicted for allegedly masterminding a plan for Justin Sneed (who was 19 at the time) to kill Van Treese. Van Treese owned the hotel in Oklahoma City where the two men worked; Glossip was the manager and Sneed a maintenance man. Sneed claimed that Glossip pressured him and offered him money in return for the deed. Glossip would ultimately be convicted twice—the first conviction being tossed in 2001—and sent to death row almost entirely on Sneed's claims. For his part, Sneed was spared the death sentence, accepted a plea deal, and sent to prison for life for beating Van Treese to death with a baseball bat.
Glossip was scheduled for execution in 2015, but he was spared when prison officials realized they had received an incorrect drug for the cocktail they use to execute inmates. The governor ordered a stay on all executions until officials could figure out what happened. Executions in the state were paused until just last year.
In June, after successfully fighting off a constitutional challenge to the state's execution methods, O'Connor began the process of rescheduling dozens of executions for the inmates sitting on death row. Glossip is second on the list, and the rescheduling has prompted a new push for a chance to prove his innocence.
Reed Smith released a lengthy report and summary in July laying out some of the problems with the case. The report shows that police investigating the murder immediately suspected Glossip and when interrogating Sneed repeatedly brought up Glossip's name and essentially pushed Sneed to point the finger back at Glossip. Jurors were not played the interrogation tape at either of Glossip's two trials. Other problems with the case have been highlighted in depth over the past decade.
This week, Reed Smith released an update that shows a letter Sneed allegedly sent from prison in 2007, following Glossip's second trial, to Gina K. Walker, the public defender who handled his case. In the letter, Sneed says he's planning to contact the attorneys with the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System (OIDS) who represented Glossip in the second trial. "I think you know were [sic] I'm going," Sneed wrote, "It was a mistake reliving this." He asks Walker to write back.
Walker (who died in 2020) wrote him back acknowledging that "some things are bothering [him]." She says she knows OIDS lawyers attempted to talk to him on Glossip's behalf and says that had Sneed refused a plea deal, he would be on death row himself. She is unsympathetic to Glossip's situation, saying, "Mr. Glossip has had two opportunities to save himself and refused to do so both times," meaning that Glossip had refused plea offers of his own and insisted on a right to a trial to prove his innocence. She concludes, "I hope he has not or his lawyers have not tried to make you feel responsible for the outcome of his case and his decisions."
Of course, Walker's job here is to defend her client and discourage Sneed from making decisions against his own interest. And the fact that Sneed is not on death row himself is likely attributable to his acceptance of the plea deal. But the tone of both Sneed's letter and Walker's response should clearly cast doubt on the circumstances of Van Treese's murder.
This newly revealed letter has prompted Oklahoma state Rep. Kevin McDugle (R–Broken Arrow) to push harder for a new hearing on the evidence against Glossip.
"In 2014, there were statements circulating that Sneed's daughter said Sneed wanted to recant, but she never came forward. With this letter written by Sneed, we have compelling new evidence that strongly supports what we heard. That Sneed wanted to recant his statement implicating Richard Glossip and his attorney shut him down," said McDugle in a prepared statement. "Given that the state's case rests entirely upon Sneed's testimony implicating Glossip, it is imperative that the court remand the case for a hearing before Richard is scheduled to be executed on September 22."
Prosecutors in O'Connor's office have been resisting this push and urging Oklahoma's courts to reject the hearing as a delaying tactic.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Nowhere is there any discussion of whether anyone thinks Glossip is completely innocent or whether they just think his role in the murder is exaggerated. Too many of Reason's articles against executions pick some sorry-ass loser who was a getaway driver or an actual robber, but one of the other robbers pulled the trigger. The utter lack here made me suspicious.
Wikipedia seems to have a pretty thorough description of the case which implies that Glossip is not just factually innocent, but also has no criminal background, and his conviction was based entirely on Sneed's testimony.
That makes this seem like a much more clear cut travesty of justice, and it's ironic that when Reason gets hold of a factually innocent death row case, they ignore that; but when they use a case of an accomplice with a sordid record on death row, they do report what a scumbag he is.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even (vst-25) realisable but my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smartpay241.blogspot.com
I wouldn't put to much trust in wikipedia. Remember how there was an edit war over the definition of a recession a week ago?
You can out faith in the opinions of appellate courts which upheld the conviction.
https://reason.com/2015/09/15/oklahoma-is-going-to-execute-a-likely-in/?comments=true#comment-5591311
The guy who actually committed the murder takes a plea deal and gets life, the guy he claims talked him into the murder but refused a plea deal gets the death penalty? Sounds like the ultimate "we're going to punish you for refusing a plea deal and making us take it to trial". And if it's true that the guy was convicted solely on the say-so of an obviously self-interested murderer, this case is a travesty.
"this case is a travesty"
And has plenty of company in today's America.
I'm mixed. I actually do think in murder-for-hire cases the hirer holds a lot of responsibility. Probably more than the murderer.
That said, I'm anti-death penalty in all cases, and can see why these details looks suspect. I don't know enough about this case to really have any large point either.
Not disagreeing with you, but there definitely needs to be a higher standard than the actual murder simply saying "he paid me to do it," especially when that results in them getting a lighter sentence.
If the only evidence presented is the actual murderer's testimony, which spared him the death penalty, that hardly seems compelling evidence warranting a death sentence for the accused...
Tell that to the courts of appeal who upheld the conviction.
They don't review the evidence, they review the procedures. You don't to get retry the case on appeal, that's not how appeals work.
And the comments from the lawyer who was supposed to be defending him are just as much a travesty
"Mr. Glossip has had two opportunities to save himself and refused to do so both times,"
I hardly consider pleading guilty to a murder you didn't commit, and getting life in prison, to be a very high bar of "saving" one's self. It shows that even the defenders are in the on the game of punishing anyone who refuses a plea deal.
It's insane that someone can be convicted, let alone executed, on the testimony of one witness who has everything to gain by being dishonest. How could there ever not be reasonable doubt in such a case? Or really any case that comes down to one person's word against another.
FWIW I wonder whether all too often, despite what the jury is told, in the case of a violent crime the jury thinks that, better to convict just to be on the safe side, if he's innocent he can always win on appeal, in ignorance of how difficult it is to overturn a jury's finding of fact (amongst other obstacles).
That would imply that juries are breaking the law.
It's insane because it didn't happen.
This is Reason on a story about capital punishment. Deception is to be expected. Mike posted a quote below. It seems that there is a lot more evidence against the guy than just the word of a conspirator
No one should be eligible for the death penalty if they did not personally commit the physical acts of the murder. No death penalty for "felony murder," no death penalty for conspiracy.
The only exception I can think of is a high velocity repeat offender -- like a don who has ordered 10 or more hits.
So... 9 freebies and the 10th wins you an execution?
Punch card?
So……. Himmler amd the other senior nazi’s should have skated on the death penalty, but some poor German Army grunt assigned to the death camps (whose options would have been to follow orders or get an immediate bullet to the head) gets executed?
I was trying to craft an exception that explicitly covers capos. Tweak it however you want -- but a dude just participating in street crime, who did not pull the trigger/swing the bat/plunge the knife, should not be eligible for the death penalty.
The name Glossip sounds familiar.
Oh yeah, I commented on this before.
https://reason.com/2015/09/15/oklahoma-is-going-to-execute-a-likely-in/?comments=true#comment-5591311
Why don't you spend a moment on Google instead of regurgitating your past comments which all come from the prosecution?
https://saverichardglossip.com/new-evidence/
https://saverichardglossip.com/
It's possible he's guilty, and it's possible he's not.
Same as you.
I quoted the Tenth Circuit.
Given the incredibly small number of executions, or even death sentences (many are eventually overturned or commuted) compared to the number of crimes considered worthy of it, capital punishment should be abolished in favor of life imprisonment without parole (unless afterwards found not guilty) due the number of innocent people being executed. You only have to look at cases like that of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was the victim of one of several "Dr. Death" types who furnished "expert testimony" on demand, even against clearly innocent people like Willingham. Add to that any number of crime labs which furnished "evidence" tailored to fit the cases, sending many to their deaths.