The U.S. Supreme Court granted Richard Glossip a new trial on the grounds that prosecutors failed to correct false testimony, which led to the jury’s 1998 conviction of Glossip and his sentence to death row.

The Court ruled on Tuesday that evidence had been withheld and may have led to a different ruling from the jury. The 5-3 ruling reverses the decision of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to uphold the ruling in 2023.

“I am grateful the justices understood the gravity of the situation,” Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond wrote in a press release. “I have long maintained that I do not believe Mr. Glossip is innocent, but it is now an undeniable fact that he did not receive a fair trial.”

In 1998, Glossip was convicted for his role in the murder of Barry Van Treese. Van Treese owned a Best Budget Inn in Oklahoma City, where Glossip lived and worked as a manager. Justin Sneed, a hotel housekeeper who worked to pay for his stay there, beat Van Treese to death in a hotel room in 1997. Sneed testified in court that Glossip had paid him $10,000 to commit the murder.

In return for this testimony, Sneed received life without parole instead of the death penalty. Glossip was convicted of first-degree murder and placed on death row while maintaining his innocence.

Glossip has eaten three final meals and bypassed nine execution dates due to delays and appeals. He has appealed his case multiple times.

In 2023, the state found documents that showed Sneed had been prescribed lithium by a jail psychiatrist to treat bipolar disorder, which contradicted his testimony that he had never seen a psychiatrist and the prescription was accidental. According to Drummond’s press release, the prosecution knew about the prescription and that Sneed’s testimony was dishonest.

Drummond joined Glossip’s request for his conviction to be reconsidered by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and his plea for clemency to the Pardon and Parole Board. The case advanced to the U.S. Supreme Court, putting his execution on hold.

Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor concluded that Glossip was entitled to a new trial because the documents showed Sneed’s testimony wasn’t credible; his testimony was the “only direct evidence” for Glossip’s conviction.

Sneed lied about being treated for bipolar disorder,  according to the Supreme Court’s ruling, and had the jury known, they would have seen he was willing to lie under oath. The prosecution also portrayed Sneed as “harmless without Glossip’s influence,” but knowledge of his bipolar disorder would have shown he was prone to violence, the ruling reads.

In the press release, Drummond said the ruling has restored justice to Glossip and ensured him a fair trial.

“I think if Mr. Glossip is retried he would be found guilty of a crime,” Drummond said last October, when the Court was hearing oral arguments in the case. “The question is, would it rise to the level of the death penalty and I honestly don’t think so. I think he will be convicted, what he is convicted of will be up to the jury, at a minimum accessory after the fact.”

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who partially dissented. Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case and did not specify why.

Gorsuch heard Glossip’s case in 2013 when he appealed to the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The court affirmed the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision to deny Glossip’s habeas corpus petition, which is a writ to challenge imprisonment.

According to the dissent, the Supreme Court doesn’t have the authority to override previous denials to revisit Glossip’s case, and the Court is bending the law to favor him.

“(The ruling) distorts our jurisdiction, imagines a constitutional violation where none occurred, and abandons basic principles governing the disposition of state-court appeals,” Thomas wrote in his dissension.

Barrett wrote the Court did have the power to make a ruling in Glossip’s case, agreeing with the majority opinion, but it didn’t have the authority to throw out the state’s previous ruling.

Rep. Justin Humphrey (R-Lane) wrote in a press release he wants justice for Glossip. He wrote that the ruling makes it clear the appellate court system, the Pardon and Parole Board and the governor did not consider all the evidence.

“Oklahoma needs to look at our entire criminal justice system and take appropriate action to correct the numerous injustices that currently exist,” Humphrey wrote in a press release.

Drummond said the attorney general’s office will review the ruling and determine what comes next in Glossip’s case.

Abby Young will be reporting with Gaylord News’ Washington bureau starting this March as part of a partnership with OU Daily. Gaylord News is a reporting project of the University of Oklahoma Gaylord College of Journalism and Mass Communication. For more stories by Gaylord News go to GaylordNews.net.

This story was edited by Ismael Lele, Ana Barboza and Peggy Dodd.