Glossip v. Oklahoma
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Glossip v. Oklahoma and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Glossip v. Oklahoma.
In Glossip v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court reviewed the conviction of Richard Glossip, who was sentenced to death based on testimony from Justin Sneed. The Court found that the prosecution violated due process by failing to correct false testimony regarding Sneed's medical condition. The case was remanded for a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct and the impact on the jury's judgment.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Glossip v. Oklahoma.
The Court held that the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony, warranting a new trial for Glossip.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Glossip v. Oklahoma. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Glossip v. Oklahoma
The case involves the prosecution's failure to correct false testimony, which violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Under Napue, a conviction obtained through the knowing use of false evidence violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Glossip v. Oklahoma
The Supreme Court exercised its power to review the state court's judgment, which involved a federal question.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)This Court has jurisdiction to review the OCCA's judgment.
-
Why Right to Counsel is relevant to Glossip v. Oklahoma
The case discusses ineffective assistance of counsel in challenging testimony, which is related to the right to effective representation.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) overturned that conviction because the defense had been ineffective in challenging Sneed's testimony.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Glossip v. Oklahoma that support the summary and concepts above.
The prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony.
The OCCA's application of the PCPA was not such a ground, because the OCCA's decision to apply the PCPA depended on its antecedent rejection of the attorney general's confession of a Napue error.
Correcting Sneed's lie would have undermined his credibility and revealed his willingness to lie under oath.