Oklahoma Governor Orders Stay of Execution for Richard Glossip
Delaying Glossip's execution until December allows the courts to consider new evidence that might prove his innocence.

Oklahoma's governor has ordered a two-month stay of execution for Richard Glossip as the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals considers whether to review new evidence that might prove his innocence.
Glossip was scheduled to be executed on Sept. 22. On Tuesday, Gov. Kevin Stitt released an executive order allowing a 60-day stay and rescheduling the execution for Dec. 8 "to allow time for the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to address a pending legal proceeding."
Glossip has been convicted twice of the 1997 murder of Oklahoma City hotel owner Barry Van Treese. Glossip did not kill Van Treese. Justin Sneed, who was 19 years old at the time, beat Van Treese to death with a baseball bat. Both Sneed and Glossip worked at a hotel Van Treese owned. Sneed claimed that Glossip orchestrated the murder out of fears that he would lose his job at the hotel and that he promised Sneed money. Glossip denied any involvement, and his lawyers have argued that what likely happened was a robbery attempt gone wrong by Sneed.
Sneed accepted a plea deal to avoid the death penalty and blamed Glossip. Glossip took his case to a jury and was convicted and sentenced to death, which he's been fighting ever since. The lack of concrete evidence against Glossip has fueled concerns that the state may be about to execute an innocent man. This year dozens of state lawmakers, including many Republicans who otherwise support the death penalty, have joined the chorus pushing for a new review of the evidence.
Last week, Reed Smith, the independent law firm that has been reinvestigating the case, released some new evidence that casts further doubt on Glossip's guilt. Sneed sent a letter to his public defender in 2007 saying he wanted to contact Glossip's attorneys, adding, "It was a mistake reliving this." Advocates of Glossip's innocence see this as a possible indication that Sneed was thinking of recanting his testimony against Glossip.
As a result of Reed Smith's disclosure, lawmakers have been pushing harder to convince Attorney General John O'Connor to support a new evidentiary hearing. Tuesday's order from Stitt creates an opportunity for the Court to consider if there's enough evidence that Glossip was wrongfully convicted. Glossip has also filed a clemency petition with the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board.
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
How was Glossip even connected to this case? If he's totally innocent, it's not even a question of staying his execution, he should be released from prison and compensated to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars from the state, and the people involved in his conviction should have their bank accounts emptied and handed directly to Glossip, publicly, followed by a loud and vocal apology.
Lazy prosecutor - get a suspect to testify against someone else for a reduction in sentence. SOP.
https://reason.com/2015/09/15/oklahoma-is-going-to-execute-a-likely-in/?comments=true#comment-5591311
I've searched quite a bit and found it difficult to find anything in the media about the details of the case, except that State About to Execute Innocent Man. No outlet is interested in presenting ANY facts of the case, including disputed facts-- beyond one or two lines about Sneed and his plea deal.
According to my link below... if you believe the women and their stories, it sounds like Glossip may be a bit of a serial manipulator. Of course, none of this is to suggest he should be put to death for a crime of murder for which he's innocent.
I just don't trust the "he innocent!!1!" based on a couple of lines in a blog post that's notorious for leaving out critical details in complex news stories.
Not once is there a link to either the Oklahoma appeals court nor the Tenth Circuit that reviewed the convictions and sentence against Glossip.
I was able to find it, and I was able to understand why both juries convicted him. Here is a hint: Sneed's testimony was not the only evidence against Glossip.
I wonder if these lawmakers read the appellate court rulings.
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 realisable but my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best (lap-58) assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smartpay21.pages.dev
How was Glossip even connected to this case? If you want to know that you will have to dig deeper than the 1 inch of digging employed by Reason. Reading this you'd think the trial lasted 30 minutes and he was sentenced to death based on 1 witnesses and 1 piece of paper submitted into evidence.
Certainly not the death penalty. I think the case smells really bad.
Um, believe all women?
The state should not have the power to take a citizen's life.
How about your fellow citizens, say, a jury of your peers? Does that seem reasonable?
I disagree with this argument. The state uses the power to take citizen's lives all the time. In ways most people find perfectly legitimate. The counter to this does not require one be "pro-death penalty", but probably the one major thing a State DOES have is the right to use violence (and kill) people. Otherwise police wouldn't carry guns and there wouldn't be a military.
certain actions\situations demand certain remedies and not all can be totally in sync with the NAP
Yes they can. NAP =/= never kill anyone for any reason ever. Now, certainly some more desirable outcomes may run more or less afoul of the NAP but if you could whimsically give them up anytime things got difficult, they wouldn't be called principles.
So is the NAP =/=never kill anyone for any reason ever I'm taking to mean they are equivalent. the =/= is unfamiliar to me.
I don't think the NAP or the imperative "never kill anyone...yada.." are axiomatic.
I may be mistaken but I get the impression by your formulation that you believe it is.
=/= is the text representation of the mathematical symbol for "is NOT equal to". As in "1 + 2 =/= 5".
The actual symbol looks like ≠ but that's a special character which a) often doesn't display properly and b) is really hard to get to on a standard keyboard. Hence =/= as the approximation.
thx.. thats the connex'n i was missing . i dont recall ever seeing it represented that way
I'm used to writing it '!=' but apparently, at some point around here, that became confusing to morons and '=/=' is more visually clear.
≠ is the mathematical symbol for not equal, != is the programming language usage. I suppose if you are more familiar with one field the other symbol may be confusing.
thats the one i am familiar with
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. (res-52) This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
After reading this article:>>> https://getjobshere34.pages.dev
I think 'demand' is the wrong word, especially if you erode the axiomatic nature of the NAP. I agree there are pragmatic constraints were it's more convenient for everyone to ignore the NAP or disputes over the nth order and/or relative vs. absolute extrapolations of it, but the idea that any given situations or a bunch of situations exist out there that demands people be killed pre-emptively seems not just anti-axiomatic but garishly flippant.
Extending an evil because it exists knows no bounds.
Well, I mean if you're arguing that the Uvalde cops did the right thing by not intervening, then I guess that's a position you hold. I don't.
how about a citizen's freedom?
so the police should not use deadly force in killing a dirtbag to save your life? really? you've clearly not thought about your position very much.
The state rarely uses deadly force to save your life. If you want your life saved, you'll have to do it yourself.
no that is wrong. more than 1000 people have been killed by police in the last year and all of then were done to protect the public.
Those 1000 people killed by police weren't threatening civilians, they were threatening police after they had already committed violent crimes. Police protected themselves, after failing to protect the public.
That doesn't mean that getting these people off the streets isn't a good thing. But it is wrong to say that police "use deadly force to save your life" in those cases.
there is no difference. if the police were not present to kill those people they would have absolutely hurt someone else. you need to buy a clue.
The police doesn't kill 99.999% of violent criminals. So the idea that getting into a shootout with the remaining 0.001% of violent criminals after they committed a criminal act somehow amounts to "saving your life" is absurd.
if a criminal is willing to get into a gun fight with police then that criminal would have zero issue with killing a civilian. the police are absolutely saving lives when they put down a criminal.
How do you feel about the two more traditional approaches for dealing with serious criminals: (1) declaring them outlaws and/or (2) exile?
Ah, Glossip.
I commented about before.
https://reason.com/2015/09/15/oklahoma-is-going-to-execute-a-likely-in/?comments=true#comment-5591311
I think there is a good chance that he is guilty of what he is accused of.
However, I think the death penalty should be used only in exceptional cases, only against the person physically carrying out the murder, and only when the evidence is overwhelming.
why? if you take someone's life outside of self defense then you deserve the exact same thing -- death. this is called justice.
I know this comes as a shock to you, but just because you think you "deserve" something doesn't mean that it's the state's job to give it to you. That's true for justice just as much as it is for government handouts.
so then who administers the death penalty? i think you're confused about the role of government. the primary and most important role for government is to keep the people safe and administer justice. and even biblically the government has the role of wielding the sword. when a dirtbag kills someone i absolutely want the government to arrest, convict and execute him -- swiftly.
Your problem is that you are confusing cosmic justice and legal justice. Under cosmic justice, a murderer may deserve to die.
But the legal system doesn't deliver cosmic justice, it just delivers legal justice. Under legal justice, many murderers go free, for both practical and moral reasons.
all murderers should be executed. period.
i totally support the death penalty -- it works every time it's used. however i do not support convicting someone on only circumstantial evidence. taking away someone's freedom or life without any concrete evidence is just wrong. if i was on a jury i would never convict anyone on only circumstantial evidence -- for anything. in this case it seems that there is no evidence that glossip is guilty. problem is that once you're convicted getting un-convicted is nearly impossible.
For more case details: https://casetext.com/case/glossip-v-state
While there's no perfect smoking gun, Glossip's actions, as told by the court of appeals, make it hard to construct a scenario where he was not complicit in the murder. if not, why did take efforts to conceal the crime? why did he sell all of possessions? etc...
Reason is doing a disservice painting the case as likely innocent.
Letter indicating possible recantation of statement is garbage and not new evidence. ('..were you lying at the trial or are you lying now?...'). There are serious claims that exculpatory evidence was destroyed by the prosecution. If that's proven true then conviction should be vacated and a new trial ordered. He may end up pleading out for time served or be exonerated and sue for millions.