Supreme Court grants cert to take another look at capital case of Richard Glossip

Almost exactly nine years ago, on January 23, 2015 to be precise, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Glossip v. Gross to consider whether Oklahoma’s execution methods complied with the Eighth Amendment.  The Supreme Court’s ruling for the state in the 2015 version of Glossip did not fully resolve execution jurisprudence, and it also did not lead to Oklahoma executing Richard Glossip.  Nearly a decade later, as detailed in this new SCOTUS order list, the Supreme Court is going to take a look at the substance of Glossip’s capital conviction and sentence in a case now titled Glossip v. Oklahoma.

The Glossip cert petition this time around presented this set of questions:

1. a. Whether the State’s suppression of the key prosecution witness’s admission he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness’s false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959).

b. Whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims. See Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).

2. Whether due process of law requires reversal, where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the State no longer seeks to defend it. See Escobar v. Texas, 143 S. Ct. 557 (2023) (mem.).

Intriguingly, the SCOTUS cert grant today adds a question (and suggests it could be down one Justice for the case):

In addition to the questions presented, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ holding that the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.