Glossip v. Oklahoma (22-7466)

argument 22-7466

Glossip v. Oklahoma

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 43m 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the opening argument and who are the parties in Glossop v. Oklahoma?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument this morning in case twenty two seventy four six six six six six sixty six, Glossop versus Oklahoma. Mr. Waxman.

Michael D. Waxman 0:09

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. Richard Glossop was convicted on the word of one man, Justin Sneed, the undisputed murderer in this case. Oklahoma has now disclosed evidence revealing that Mr. Sneed lied to the jury about his history of psychiatric treatment, including the fact that a prison psychiatrist prescribed lithium to treat his previously undiagnosed bipolar disorder. The prosecution suppressed that evidence and then failed to correct Mr. Sneed's perjured denial, just as it suppressed evidence that in the middle of trial, in violation of the court's sequestration order, Sneed altered his testimony about the knife wounds on the victim at the urgent request of the prosecutor, who then falsely denied to the court her prior knowledge.

Michael D. Waxman 1:03

There is no adequate or independent jurisdictional bar to review and no warrant for an evidentiary hearing. As to independence, the Court's opinion is suffused with merit's determination on the Brady and Napo claims, and certainly there is no, quote, clear and express statement. That the court's decision is based on a bona fide separate, adequate and independent grounds as long required by this court to preclude review. Nor is there any adequate bar. By rejecting the State's waiver, the Court created a jurisdictional threshold it had never applied in any other case. The disposition was, quote, without support in prior state law, as required by over 60 years of this Court's precedent to establish adequacy.

Michael D. Waxman 1:56

No evidentiary hearing could alter the conclusion that Mr. glossop was denied due process. There's no dispute that contrary to Snead's sworn testimony, the State's own suppressed record shows that he was in fact treated by a psychiatrist for bipolar disorder, just as there is no dispute that Snead changed his testimony about the knife at the urgent mid trial request of the prosecutor, who then falsely denied that very fact to the court. This court should reverse and remand for a new trial. I welcome the court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:35

Uh Mr. Waxman, you place quite a bit of weight on the note uh notes uh from Smotherman and Ackley and from your opening statement you clearly do not agree with them. Uh did you at any point get a statement from either one of the uh prosecutors?

Michael D. Waxman 2:56

Yes. Did

Clarence Thomas 2:57

you interview them?

Michael D. Waxman 2:59

Well, to be clear, we we did get a s sworn statement, which I believe is at page nine sixty of the joint appendix from Gary Ackley, in which for among other things, he never mentions the fact that he never mentions the account that he is now uh provided to the in the Amicus brief for the Van Tries family.

How does the prosecution’s suppression of psychiatric evidence affect the case?

Michael D. Waxman 3:24

And as to Ms Smotherman, Ms. Smotherman was interviewed both by the independent the legislature's independent counsel and by the Attorney General's independent counsel, Mr. Duncan, she gave different answers each time, none of which was the account she's now provided in an unsworn letter attached to the Van Treese brief.

Clarence Thomas 3:48

Well it would seem that because not only d you know their reputations are being impugned, but they are central to this case. It would seem that they th an interview of these two prosecutors would be central. Uh they suggest that the their interviews were generally about prosecuting capital cases and not specifically about the details of this.

Michael D. Waxman 4:11

Look, their current unsworn statement appended at the very last minute for the very first time in a merits amicus brief before this court. deserves all the benefit of the doubt that they you know, to which they are entitled. When in the context of Mr. Ackley did file an affidavit, it is in the record in this case, and it is not in any way consistent with his current account. Did they make

Clarence Thomas 4:42

themselves unavailable? Sorry to interrupt.

Michael D. Waxman 4:44

Well he made himself available. He provided us a declaration.

Clarence Thomas 4:48

No, it's uh it what you're saying is m would make sense if for some reason they had made themselves unavailable, they suggest that they were not sought out and given an opportunity to give detailed accounts of what those notes meant and and what they did during the trial.