When Prosecutors "Take a Dive" — The Purported "Error" in the Glossip Case

My op-ed in The Hill discusses the problem of prosecutors confessing "error" where none exists.

Previously I blogged about the Glossip case before the Supreme Court, in posts found here, here, and here. This death penalty case involves a prosecutor confessing a purported "error" where, in fact, no error exists.

This past weekend, I published an op-ed in The Hill that reviews the problem of prosecutors "taking a dive" by confessing nonexistent errors. Here's the introduction:

Earlier this month, Amherst College Professor Austin Sarat criticized Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito for asking pointed questions about death row inmate Richard Glossip's claim that his 2004 murder conviction should be overturned. After all, Oklahoma's new attorney general, Gentner Drummond, supports Glossip's contention that the trial prosecutors withheld evidence.

This popular narrative, however, is a manufactured and bogus claim. The prosecutors never withheld evidence. The case's true lesson is about the emerging dangers of prosecutors confessing phantom "errors," and sometimes even throwing cases on purpose.

You can read the whole op-ed here. Kent Scheidegger has some interesting discussion of the issues over at the Crime and Consequences blog.