By John Kruzel
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – When attorneys for Richard Glossip argue earlier than the U.S. Supreme Court docket on Wednesday to vacate his conviction for a 1997 homicide, the Oklahoma dying row inmate may have an unlikely ally: Gentner Drummond, the state’s Republican lawyer basic.
Though Drummond has taken conservative stances on points from immigration to abortion to environmental regulation, the adorned former U.S. Air Drive fighter pilot broke with fellow Republican state attorneys basic in Glossip’s case after concluding prosecutors hid proof which may have led to an acquittal.
“If he is executed, I believe that it will be a travesty of justice,” Drummond mentioned in an interview.
Glossip, now 61, was convicted in 1998 of a murder-for-hire scheme. After an appeals courtroom overturned that conviction primarily based on ineffective protection counsel, Glossip once more was discovered responsible of first-degree homicide in a 2004 retrial. Glossip is asking the Supreme Court docket to grant him a brand new trial after an Oklahoma courtroom refused to overturn his conviction regardless of doubtlessly exculpatory proof being lately uncovered.
The choice by the Supreme Court docket, which begins its new time period on Monday, is anticipated by the top of June.
Glossip was convicted of commissioning the homicide of Barry Van Treese, proprietor of the Finest Funds Inn motel in Oklahoma Metropolis the place Glossip was a supervisor. All events agree Van Treese was overwhelmed to dying with a baseball bat by upkeep employee Justin Sneed. Sneed confessed to the homicide however averted capital punishment by accepting a plea deal that concerned testifying that Glossip paid him $10,000 to do it.
The sufferer’s household, represented by former federal decide Paul Cassell, filed a quick with the Supreme Court docket saying, “The truth here is that no evidence was suppressed and Glossip commissioned the murder of Barry Van Treese.”
After taking workplace final 12 months, Drummond started reviewing every of Oklahoma’s 28 then-pending dying row instances. The veteran trial lawyer noticed hallmarks of a rock strong prosecution in almost all these convictions: direct witnesses, corroborating witnesses and what he referred to as “facts galore” indicating a defendant’s guilt.
However what he noticed in Glossip’s case troubled him.
Securing a homicide conviction towards Glossip hinged on the testimony of Sneed, who was a methamphetamine addict, and the reliability of his account. Glossip admitted to serving to Sneed cowl up the homicide after it occurred, however denied understanding that Sneed deliberate to kill Van Treese or encouraging him to take action.
“The state’s witness was the murderer, and he was endorsed for the death penalty until he turned state’s evidence and said, ‘Oh, not me, but Mr. Glossip – he’s the mastermind,'” Drummond mentioned. “That struck me as very odd.”
INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION
Drummond commissioned an unbiased investigation and disclosed info – together with a prosecutor’s hand-written notes from a gathering with Sneed – that had been withheld from Glossip’s attorneys.
The brand new info solid doubt on Sneed’s credibility, Glossip’s attorneys mentioned. They contend they have been saved in the dead of night about Sneed receiving psychiatric remedy for bipolar dysfunction instantly after his arrest, and that prosecutors didn’t right a false assertion Sneed made about his prescription for the remedy lithium.
These revelations led Drummond to succeed in a momentous conclusion: If prosecutors had given protection attorneys all of the exculpatory proof they possessed, as required by regulation, then Glossip may need been acquitted.
“I don’t believe Mr. Glossip was given a fair trial,” Drummond mentioned.
Glossip’s case will not be the primary time Drummond has pushed again towards an order to kill.
In 1991, whereas flying an F-15 Eagle in a nighttime operation through the U.S.-led Persian Gulf Warfare towards Iraq, Drummond disobeyed three direct orders to fireplace a missile at an plane that had been recognized as hostile. Dealing with anti-aircraft artillery hearth and low gasoline, then-Captain Drummond insisted on personally confirming that the plane was an enemy earlier than taking pictures it down.
Drummond was later awarded the U.S. Distinguished Flying Cross for figuring out the jet as an allied Saudi plane and withholding hearth. His 1991 army quotation mentioned his actions had “prevented the tragic loss” of allied forces’ lives.
In Glossip’s case, Drummond confirmed “an unusual amount of courage” by asking the Supreme Court docket to halt Glossip’s execution and grant him a brand new trial, mentioned Robin Maher, govt director of the Dying Penalty Info Heart nonprofit group.
“It’s impossible to overstate just how extraordinary it is,” Maher mentioned.
Drummond’s help, Maher added, would be the cause why the Supreme Court docket selected to halt Glossip’s execution and listen to his case moderately than reject it, as usually occurs when dying row inmates attraction.
As a result of Oklahoma’s lawyer basic is supporting Glossip’s attraction, the Supreme Court docket needed to take the uncommon step of tapping an outdoor lawyer – non-public lawyer Christopher Michel – to argue that Glossip’s conviction needs to be upheld.
Michel in his Supreme Court docket transient, amongst different issues, sought to rebut the declare by Glossip’s attorneys that the newly disclosed info undermined Sneed’s credibility or the prosecution’s dealing with of the case.
Drummond’s maverick streak has put him at odds with Republican attorneys basic from eight states who urged the justices to clear the way in which for Glossip’s execution. He beforehand bucked fellow Republicans in Oklahoma by efficiently suing on constitutional grounds to dam the primary taxpayer-funded spiritual constitution college in the US.
Drummond mentioned he didn’t weigh any potential political dangers for backing Glossip, akin to being painted by opponents as mushy on crime.
“If that means I’m never elected again, then I can go to my grave being satisfied that I did the right thing,” Drummond mentioned.
Drummond believes Glossip’s function in overlaying up Van Treese’s homicide makes him at the very least an “accessory after the fact,” justifying a protracted jail sentence. However Glossip’s homicide conviction was too flawed for Drummond to defend.
“Oklahomans deserve to have absolute faith that the death penalty is administered fairly and with certainty,” Drummond mentioned.
Drummond mentioned he feels duty-bound to attend executions to honor victims and their households, and the reminiscence of these put to dying. Seven instances as lawyer basic he has sat 4 toes (1.2 meters) away as an inmate strapped to a gurney was administered a deadly injection.
Drummond mentioned he’ll implement no matter judgment the Supreme Court docket makes regarding Glossip, even when it means supervising an execution he believes to be mistaken.
“I feel strongly that my position is correct,” Drummond mentioned. “But if a majority on the Supreme Court says otherwise, I will be in the death chamber with Mr. Glossip.”
