The fractured Supreme Court faced a complex scenario where critical doubts regarding Richard Glossip's conviction raised fundamental questions about prosecutorial misconduct and the legality of the trial.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested sending the case back to Oklahoma for an evidentiary hearing, highlighting the struggle within the court to reach a conclusive ruling.
Paul D. Clement argued that Glossip's capital conviction was deeply flawed due to prosecutorial misconduct, emphasizing the dire consequences of allowing an unfair trial to stand.
Investigations have brought into question the integrity of the key testimony against Glossip, particularly focusing on the reliability of the state's star witness.
Collection
[
|
...
]