Not only is Richard Glossip still alive, but he will receive a new trial, a new opportunity to establish the reasonableness of doubt about his guilt. A really ugly injustice has been done here already, by virtue of the very fact that such celebration is necessary. But it is an ugliness that may avoid a final consummation now. Glossip is alive because the US Supreme Court, more than a year ago now, agreed to hear his case. You can enter his name in the search engine to this blog if you want to find a fuller explanation. Or, go to other sources of news if you believe that there are other sources. https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/02/supreme-court-grants-richard-glossip-new-trial-in-capital-case/ In January 1997 (yes, more than 28 years ago, and days before the second inaugural of President Clinton) and man called Barry Van Treese beat Justin Sneed to death with a baseball bat. In order to avoid the death penalty, Sneed testified that Glossip ...
Posts
Welcome back. We'll look at four cases, arranging in increasing order of the height of their media profile. Death with the Assistance of Counsel Diving right in there: in McCOY v. LOUISIANA (May 14) the Court found that the "effective assistance of counsel" guaranteed by the 6th amendment to the Constitution requires that the defendant be able to choose the objective of his defense -- that is, whether the defense should be to concede the crime but plead mitigating circumstances, or whether it should deny guilt. In the case before the court, McCoy's attorney, Robert English, admitted to the jury repeatedly, and against his client's repeated instructions, that his client "committed three murders." Indeed, he told them there was "no way reasonably possible" that they could hear the case and come to any other conclusion than that McCoy was "the cause of these individuals' deaths." He tried to make the case for mercy, for seei...
It appears that the life or death of Marion Wilson Jr., pictured here,may turn on a dry-seeming point of appellate procedure, and an even more obscure seeming question in the interpretation of a precedent. First: should a federal appellate court look through a "summary decision" to review the last REASONED judicial decision in the hierarchical chain? Second, did the Supreme Court decision in HARRINGTON v. RICHTER implicitly answer that question "no," silently abrogating an earlier look-through rule? Here's a link to a brief discussion of where the case of WILSON v. SELLERS now stands. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-6855 Wilson's appellate attorney petitioned for a new trial on the basis of the alleged incompetence of his original trial attorney. There were other arguments too, which I'll ignore for the moment. The superior court denied that petition, and the attorney then appealed to the state Supreme Court. The state high court issued a...
Another term of the U.S. Supreme Court has come and gone. This year, the one case that is THE ONE, destined for the history books, not just the law books, is clearly ... well, there are at least two, and they were both decided very near the end of the term. The court addressed the latest challenge to a pillar of Obamacare, and it offered constitutional protection to the institution of marriage between homosexuals. I'll discuss each of those opinions in the second part of this three-part review. Today, I'll say a few words about each of three second-tier decisions, so to speak. In increasing order of importance as I quite subjectively determine that, I've decided to include here Oneok v.Learjet (on preemption in the US energy markets); Brumfield v. Cain (on the death penalty and the mentally handicapped); Zivotofsky v. Kerry (separation of powers and recognition of the boundaries of foreign countries). They each raise questions foundational enough to make ...