The case of Richard Glossip highlights a disturbing trend where courts double down on flawed convictions, even when evidence suggests innocence. Despite the original prosecutor's concession for a new trial, Glossip faces execution.
Glossip's conviction relied primarily on the uncorroborated testimony of his co-defendant, Justin Sneed, who was later found to have serious mental illness and attempted to recant his statement, which undermines the case's integrity.
The Oklahoma City district attorney acknowledged Glossip's right to a new trial, recognizing the crumbling credibility of the sole witness against him, yet the higher court pushed toward his execution regardless.
Despite the overwhelming agreement from various officials and independent investigators that Glossip deserves another chance, the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals denied appeal, pushing for his execution instead.
Collection
[
|
...
]