Podcasts about glossip

Richard Glossip spent years on Oklahoma's death row for a murder he says he did not commit. He has come within hours of execution and has been served his last meal three times. Richard has filed numerous appeals and professed his innocence for over 20 years. Join Mike and Gibby as they discuss Richard Glossip. He was convicted of murdering his boss and sentenced to death row. The trial revolved around circumstantial evidence and testimony from an alleged accomplice. But many believe Glossip may not be guilty, or at least he deserves a new trial.You can help support the show at patreon.com/truecrimeallthetimeVisit the show's website at truecrimeallthetime.com for contact, merchandise, and donation informationAn Emash Digital productionSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Curtis and Ryan sit down with former state Representative Kevin McDugle to discuss the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Glossip v. Oklahoma and his role in the case. Notes: https://www.reedsmith.com/en/news/2023/03/reed-smith-glossip-investigation-releases-new-findings-evidence-withheld 

In this case, the court considered this issue: May Oklahoma carry out the execution of Richard Glossip in light of the prosecutorial misconduct and other errors that affected his conviction and sentencing?The case was decided on February 25, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's failure to correct false testimony violated the Due Process Clause under Napue v Illinois. A conviction that relies on false evidence, knowingly allowed by the prosecution, requires reversal if there is a reasonable likelihood the falsehood affected the jury's judgment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the 6-2 majority opinion of the Court.The prosecution allowed its key witness, Justin Sneed, to provide false testimony about his mental health and medical treatment. The new evidence showed that Sneed was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and prescribed lithium, facts that were withheld from the defense. At trial, Sneed falsely claimed he was never treated by a psychiatrist and received lithium mistakenly. This falsehood was material because Sneed's testimony was the only direct evidence implicating Glossip, and impeachment of his credibility could have influenced the jury's decision. The prosecution had prior knowledge of Sneed's mental health treatment and still failed to correct the misstatement when it was made to the jury.Correcting this false testimony would likely have changed the jury's assessment of Sneed's reliability. Additionally, the prosecution's violations extended beyond Napue: it suppressed exculpatory evidence, interfered with witness testimony, and allowed destruction of key physical evidence. Given these cumulative errors and their impact on the fairness of the trial, Glossip is entitled to a new trial. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' rejection of the attorney general's confession of error was based on a misapplication of federal law.Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the consideration or decision of the case.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Few death row cases have captivated the public like Richard Glossip's. Convicted of orchestrating the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese, Glossip has faced execution nine times, narrowly avoiding death again just weeks ago. But did he actually commit the crime? This episode breaks down the shocking twists, the fight to overturn his conviction, and why his name is again making headlines. -- Connect with us! Instagram: @unnaturalthepodcast Facebook: Unnatural: A True Crime Podcast Email: unnaturalthepodcast@gmail.com

The Federalist Society Executive Director of the Society for the Rule of Law, Gregg Thomas Nunziata joins Legal Face-Off to discuss the recent selection of the FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino. UC Berkeley Law Chancellor's Clinical Professor of Law and Co-Director, Death Penalty Clinic Elisabeth Semel discusses Richard Glossip's new trial. NYU Law Norman Dorsen […]

It took decades for death row inmate Richard Glossip to convince Oklahomans and, later, the U.S. Supreme Court that he deserved a new trial. Glossip is just one of many inmates who say they faced convictions for crimes they did not commit. Read about enough of these cases, and you'll be asking, “Is innocence enough?”For the wrongfully convicted, tearful reunions and proclamations of justice from the courthouse steps only come after an arduous exoneration process paved with years of litigation.The average person wrongfully convicted loses a decade of their life behind bars, learning the legal system and advocating for their innocence. As the number of exonerations rise annually, there is still no way to track how many people have suffered unjust convictions.In the third episode of our fifth season, we journey through the highs and lows of post-conviction purgatory for people claiming innocence, from one Oklahoma man's hand-written petitions to a New York man who waited nearly two decades for evidence to emerge for a lawyer to take his case.Special guests:Andrea Miller, legal director of the Oklahoma Innocence ProjectMaurice Possley, researcher at the National Registry of ExonerationsJustin Brooks, co-founder of the California Innocence ProjectLaneshia Jordan, Texas attorneyJeffrey Deskovic, exoneree and attorneyMichael Grant, exoneree and assistant director of The Liberation FoundationRetired U.S. Magistrate Judge Kristen MixCarl Wyatt, Oklahoma inmate asserting innocenceThis episode was produced by Kirk McDaniel. Intro music by The Dead Pens. Editorial staff is Ryan Abbott, Sean Duffy and Jamie Ross.

OA1132 - We resume our regularly scheduled rapid response to law in the news, starting with some good news (really) from the Supreme Court! Then: some-not-so-good news from the Supreme Court on the Trump administration's efforts to dismantle the US Agency for International Development. Why did a federal judge need to issue an order confirming that he really meant it when he told the new administration to resume paying out the funds that Congress intended, and why does John Roberts seem to be taking this nonsense seriously? Matt then provides some context for a recent announcement regarding the Trump administration's intention to require all undocumented people to register with DHS before dropping a footnote with recent developments in the unbelievable story of the most (allegedly) felonious Supreme Court litigator in modern US history.  Glossip v. Oklahoma (Feb. 25, 2025) Complete docket for Global Health Council v. Trump  Letter to the editor of the New York Times from NY Congressional representative Emmanuel Celler opposing alien registration (May 25, 1925) Alien Registration Act of 1940 Indictment in U.S. v. Goldstein(1/16/25) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Back in the studio after a couple of fun live shows, we discover that the Court has finally given us too much to talk about. We discuss the new Trump Administration's first shadow docket adventure, a number of interesting solo opinions from the orders list, the decline in summary reversals, and the overall quality of oral advocacy before the Court. We then take a deep dive into the Court's opinion in Glossip v. Oklahoma, a capital case with many factual, jurisdictional, and remedial complexities. 

This Day in Legal History: Woodrow Wilson Signs Grand Canyon National Park ActOn February 26, 1919, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Grand Canyon National Park Act, officially designating the Grand Canyon as a national park. This landmark decision aimed to preserve the canyon's breathtaking landscapes, unique geological formations, and rich biodiversity for future generations. Prior to its national park status, the Grand Canyon had been a federally protected reserve, but conservationists pushed for stronger protections. The designation marked a significant victory for the early environmental movement, ensuring that the canyon would be safeguarded from mining, logging, and other commercial exploitation.The Grand Canyon, carved over millions of years by the Colorado River, is one of the world's most iconic natural wonders. Its layered rock formations offer a window into Earth's geological history, dating back nearly two billion years. Beyond its scientific significance, the canyon holds deep cultural importance for Indigenous tribes, including the Havasupai, Hopi, and Navajo, who have lived in and around the area for centuries. The national park designation helped protect these cultural and historical sites, though it also led to conflicts over land rights.The creation of Grand Canyon National Park was part of a broader movement in the early 20th century to protect America's natural landscapes. This movement, championed by figures like President Theodore Roosevelt, laid the foundation for the modern National Park System. Today, Grand Canyon National Park attracts millions of visitors annually, serving as a testament to the enduring importance of conservation efforts.President Donald Trump has ordered the suspension of security clearances and government contracts for the law firm Covington & Burling due to its legal assistance to special counsel Jack Smith. In a memo signed in the Oval Office, Trump accused law firms of using pro bono work to obstruct the government. The directive specifically targets Peter Koski, a Covington partner, and calls for a review of the firm's federal contracts.  Smith recently disclosed that Covington provided him with $140,000 in pro bono legal services as he faces government scrutiny. Covington stated that it represents Smith in a personal capacity and will continue to defend his interests. Legal experts note that security clearances are crucial for private attorneys handling national security matters.  Trump, who has been indicted in two cases led by Smith, referred to the order as the "Deranged Jack Smith signing" and mocked the prosecutor after signing the memo.Trump Targets Covington Security, Contracts Over Work With SmithThe U.S. Supreme Court has ordered a new trial for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, ruling that prosecutorial misconduct violated his constitutional rights. In a rare win for a capital defendant, two conservative justices joined the court's three liberals to overturn Glossip's conviction. Oklahoma's Republican attorney general had also acknowledged errors in the case, including prosecutors withholding evidence and failing to correct false testimony.  Glossip was convicted for allegedly orchestrating the 1997 murder of his boss, Barry Van Treese, though the actual killer, Justin Sneed, was the state's key witness. Newly disclosed documents revealed that Sneed had considered recanting, was coached by prosecutors, and lied about his mental health history. Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that correcting Sneed's false testimony would have significantly damaged his credibility.  Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the liberal justices in the ruling, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett partially agreed but wanted the state court to decide if a new trial was warranted. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, arguing the case should have been left to Oklahoma courts. Glossip's execution had been blocked nine times before, and his attorney emphasized the ruling as a crucial step toward justice. It remains uncertain whether Oklahoma will retry the case or pursue the death penalty again.Justices Order New Trial in Rare Win for Death Row Inmate (2)A U.S. judge has extended an order blocking President Donald Trump's administration from enforcing a sweeping freeze on federal funding, citing concerns that the policy could be reinstated. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that despite the administration's withdrawal of an initial memo pausing grants and loans, statements from White House officials suggested the freeze was still in effect.  The funding pause, announced in January, aimed to review federal financial assistance programs for compliance with Trump's executive orders, including those ending diversity initiatives and pausing climate-related projects. Nonprofits and small business groups sued, arguing the freeze would cause widespread harm.  AliKhan criticized the policy as legally baseless and impractical, saying it would either halt up to $3 trillion in spending overnight or force agencies to review all grants within a day. She called the administration's actions “irrational” and warned of a potential national crisis. The ruling prevents the government from reimposing the freeze under a different name, marking a legal setback for Trump's efforts to reshape federal spending priorities.Trump blocked from imposing sweeping federal funding freeze | ReutersIn my weekly Bloomberg Tax column, I examine Washington State's new data broker tax, a well-intended but ultimately insufficient approach to curbing exploitative data practices. The legislation treats consumer data like a natural resource, imposing a severance tax on its collection. However, this framework fails to address the real issue: long-term data retention and reuse.  A more effective solution would be a retention tax, which would discourage firms from hoarding personal data indefinitely. Under the current bill, companies pay a tiered tax based on the number of residents whose data they collect. While this sounds like a fair approach, it risks consolidating data power in the hands of large platforms that can absorb the tax and continue selling consumer information without restriction. Worse, the tax may encourage firms to store data longer, giving it an artificial market value that promotes hoarding rather than limiting collection.  Unlike oil or minerals, personal data is not depleted upon use—it can be endlessly repackaged and resold. A retention tax would align economic incentives with privacy concerns, forcing firms to justify prolonged data storage and pay accordingly. Without it, Washington's proposal does little to curb long-term privacy risks and may ultimately entrench the very data exploitation it seeks to prevent.Washington's Data Broker Tax Is a Promising but Inadequate Move This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

(2/18/2025-2/25/2025) Back from the grave. Tune in.patreon.com/isaiahnews#applepodcasts⁠ ⁠#spotifypodcasts⁠ ⁠#youtube #amazon⁠ ⁠#patreon⁠

The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday directed Oklahoma to vacate the murder conviction of Richard Glossip, the state's most famous death row inmate, finding that prosecutors violated Glossip's civil rights during his trial more than 20 years ago. “Glossip is entitled to a new trial,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion for five justices. She was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Kentaji Brown and Amy Comey Barrett, who dissented in part. Glossip has spent 26 years on death row, had two trials, nine execution dates and three last meals. Tuesday's ruling came as Oklahoma prepares to execute its first inmate of the year in March, the 16th since the state resumed executions in 2021.On today's podcast, I'm joined by former Republican lawmaker Kevin McDugle. In his time in the Legislature, McDugle advocated for Glossip, as well as for various reforms to Oklahoma's use of the death penalty.This is Listen Frontier, a podcast exploring the investigative journalism of the Frontier and featuring conversations with those on the frontlines of Oklahoma's most important stories. Listen to us Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher.To donate to The Frontier and help support our efforts to grow investigative journalism in Oklahoma, click here.

In today's episode, Eva and I discuss Glossip v. Oklahoma. The case is about Richard Glossip who has been sentenced to the death penalty despite the prosecution hiding information about a key witness' mental health and that same witness admitting that he lied on the stand. We dive into the ethical implications of what will happen if the Supreme Court decides to uphold Glossip's sentence. Here are the sources we used: - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/22-7466 - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/04/opinion/courts-execution-mistakes.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare - https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7466/308603/20240429163200162_22-7466%20ts.pdf - https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/clemency - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/ - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule - https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7466/270450/20230705170639604_GlossipRes%20MAIN%20%20E%20FILE%20Jul%205.pdf - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-7955

In Today's Episode, we talk about one of the most heavily litigated capital cases in American History.This podcast was made possible by www.labrottiecreations.com Check out their merchandise and specifically their fun pop pet art custom pieces made from photos of your very own pets. Use the promo code CRIMEXS for 20% off a fun, brightly colored, happy piece of art of your own pet at their site.Music in this episode was licensed for True Crime XS by slip.fm. The song is “No Scars”.You can reach us at our website truecrimexs.com and you can leave us a voice message at 252-365-5593. Find us most anywhere with @truecrimexsThanks for listening. Please like and subscribe if you want to hear more and you can come over to patreon.com/truecrimexs and check out what we've got going on there if you'd like to donate to fund future True Crime XS road trip investigations and FOIA requests. We also have some merchandise up at Teepublic http://tee.pub/lic/mZUXW1MOYxMSources:www.namus.govwww.thecharleyproject.comwww.newspapers.comFindlaw.comVarious News Sources Mentioned by Namehttps://zencastr.com/?via=truecrimexshttps://www.chicagomag.com/chicago-magazine/june-2015/chicago-crime-stats/https://footprintsattheriversedge.blogspot.comhttps://fstoppers.com/education/biggest-dangers-photographers-face-299728#comment-threadhttps://chicago.suntimes.com/2016/4/20/18346909/pair-sentenced-in-death-of-woman-featured-in-chicago-magazinehttps://zencastr.com/?via=truecrimexs

OA1078 - The Supreme Court is back from their vacation and is set to ruin a bunch of lives again! They start off with Glossip v. Oklahoma, another opportunity for the Republican ghouls on the Court to execute a potentially innocent man. But not to worry, Matt's Footnote Fetish(tm) will bring us wayyyy back into happy territory, as a favorite character from OA past is in the news in the best way! Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Glossip v. Oklahoma, a case challenging the constitutionality of Richard Glossip's conviction and sentencing to death for a 1997 murder. In this episode, Paul Cassell of the University of Utah and Andrea Miller of the Oklahoma Innocence Project join Jeffrey Rosen to recap the oral arguments and debate whether or not Glossip's conviction should stand in light of newly revealed documents that allegedly suggest prosecutorial misconduct.    Resources:  Glossip v. Oklahoma, Supreme Court oral argument (audio via C-SPAN; transcript)   Brief of Amicus Curiae the Innocence Project in Support of Petitioner Richard Eugene Glossip, Glossip v. Oklahoma    Paul G. Cassell, “Brief of Victim Family Members Derek Van Treese, Donna Van Treese, and Alana Mileto as Amici Curiae in Support of Affirming the Judgment Below,” Glossip v. Oklahoma Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

QUESTION PRESENTED:(1) Whether the state's suppression of the key prosecution witness' admission that he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness' false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois; (2) whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims; (3) whether due process of law requires reversal where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the state no longer seeks to defend it; and (4) whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' holding that the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

“Prosecutors elicited perjury and a man's gonna go to his death. We can't allow that to happen.” – Paul Clement, October 9th, 2024.  This week the US Supreme Court heard arguments in the latest chapter in the complex and prolonged legal battle involving Richard Glossip, who has been on Oklahoma's death row since his conviction for a 1997 murder-for-hire. Following two independent investigations into allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, suppression of material evidence, and a history of inadequate defense counsel, Oklahoma's Attorney General took the bold step of confessing to constitutional error in the case and supporting a new trial. But Oklahoma's State Supreme Court is pressing on with Glossip's execution, and so, on Wednesday morning, the High Court heard a case long on the appearance of process and short on actual justice. Don Knight, Richard Glossip's attorney of almost 10 years, provides insights into the flawed process, and the shocking revelations from newly discovered evidence boxes. This case highlights broader questions about justice, fairness, and trust in the American legal system…. Leading us to an update from the latest inductee to the Lady Justice Hall of Fame – Amicus listener Barbara Hausman-Smith, and her one-woman protest at One First Street. Listen to the end of the show to find out what links this 76-year-old grandmother from Maine to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and SCOTUS's landmark decision to legalize equal marriage in Obergefell in 2015.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“Prosecutors elicited perjury and a man's gonna go to his death. We can't allow that to happen.” – Paul Clement, October 9th, 2024.  This week the US Supreme Court heard arguments in the latest chapter in the complex and prolonged legal battle involving Richard Glossip, who has been on Oklahoma's death row since his conviction for a 1997 murder-for-hire. Following two independent investigations into allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, suppression of material evidence, and a history of inadequate defense counsel, Oklahoma's Attorney General took the bold step of confessing to constitutional error in the case and supporting a new trial. But Oklahoma's State Supreme Court is pressing on with Glossip's execution, and so, on Wednesday morning, the High Court heard a case long on the appearance of process and short on actual justice. Don Knight, Richard Glossip's attorney of almost 10 years, provides insights into the flawed process, and the shocking revelations from newly discovered evidence boxes. This case highlights broader questions about justice, fairness, and trust in the American legal system…. Leading us to an update from the latest inductee to the Lady Justice Hall of Fame – Amicus listener Barbara Hausman-Smith, and her one-woman protest at One First Street. Listen to the end of the show to find out what links this 76-year-old grandmother from Maine to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and SCOTUS's landmark decision to legalize equal marriage in Obergefell in 2015.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“Prosecutors elicited perjury and a man's gonna go to his death. We can't allow that to happen.” – Paul Clement, October 9th, 2024.  This week the US Supreme Court heard arguments in the latest chapter in the complex and prolonged legal battle involving Richard Glossip, who has been on Oklahoma's death row since his conviction for a 1997 murder-for-hire. Following two independent investigations into allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, suppression of material evidence, and a history of inadequate defense counsel, Oklahoma's Attorney General took the bold step of confessing to constitutional error in the case and supporting a new trial. But Oklahoma's State Supreme Court is pressing on with Glossip's execution, and so, on Wednesday morning, the High Court heard a case long on the appearance of process and short on actual justice. Don Knight, Richard Glossip's attorney of almost 10 years, provides insights into the flawed process, and the shocking revelations from newly discovered evidence boxes. This case highlights broader questions about justice, fairness, and trust in the American legal system…. Leading us to an update from the latest inductee to the Lady Justice Hall of Fame – Amicus listener Barbara Hausman-Smith, and her one-woman protest at One First Street. Listen to the end of the show to find out what links this 76-year-old grandmother from Maine to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and SCOTUS's landmark decision to legalize equal marriage in Obergefell in 2015.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The case of an Oklahoma death row inmate goes before the nation's highest court.Oklahoma and Texas settle a decades old dispute over their state lines.A video game company wants an accurate portrayal of the Shawnee Tribe. You can find the KOSU Daily wherever you get your podcasts, you can also subscribe, rate us and leave a comment.You can keep up to date on all the latest news throughout the day at KOSU.org and make sure to follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram at KOSU Radio.This is The KOSU Daily, Oklahoma news, every weekday.

Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip appears likely to achieve a rare victory at the Supreme Court despite a conservative majority that's often hostile to capital defendants.  One factor setting Glossip's case apart from others is that the state's Republican attorney general sided with him in his bid for a new trial. But the fact that it's still a question whether Glossip will prevail after arguments Oct. 9 shows the steep climb capital defendants have a the Supreme Court. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr run through the arguments and the hurdles that Glossip must clear. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in a death row case from Oklahoma. Justices looked at whether the due process rights of death row inmate Richard Glossip were violated when the state suppressed information about its star witness who committed the murder. A court of criminal appeals has denied Glossip's appeal for a retrial. Oklahoma communities correspondent Adam Kemp reports. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

A capital case in which the Court will decide whether to allow Oklahoma to execute Petitioner Richard Glossip after numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct and other errors, where even the state no longer defends the capital sentence.

A capital case in which the Court will decide whether to allow Oklahoma to execute Petitioner Richard Glossip after numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct and other errors, where even the state no longer defends the capital sentence.

Death Penalty: Does due process requires reversal, where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the State no longer seeks to defend it? - Argued: Wed, 09 Oct 2024 13:22:16 EDT

Glossip v. Oklahoma | 10/09/24 | Docket #: 22-7466

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger, (October 7) -Federalism & Separation of Powers; Whether a post-removal amendment of a complaint to omit federal questions defeats federal-question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) whether such a post-removal amendment of a complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.Williams v. Washington, (October 7) -Federalism & Separation of Powers; Whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is required to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court.Garland v. VanDerStok, (October 8) -Second Amendment; Whether “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 is a “firearm” regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968; and (2) whether “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” that is “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c) is a “frame or receiver” regulated by the act.Lackey v. Stinnie, (October 8) -Civil Procedure; (1) Whether a party must obtain a ruling that conclusively decides the merits in its favor, as opposed to merely predicting a likelihood of later success, to prevail on the merits under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (2) whether a party must obtain an enduring change in the parties’ legal relationship from a judicial act, as opposed to a non-judicial event that moots the case, to prevail under Section 1988.Glossip v. Oklahoma, (October 9) -Criminal Law; (1) Whether the state’s suppression of the key prosecution witness’ admission that he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness’ false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois; (2) whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims; (3) whether due process of law requires reversal where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the state no longer seeks to defend it; and (4) whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' holding that the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, (October 15), -Immigration; Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria.Medical Marijuana v. Horn, October 15 -Criminal Law; Whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, (October 16) -Environmental Law & Regulation; Whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.Bufkin v. McDonough, (October 16) -Vetrans Affairs; Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1), which directs the court to “take due account” of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ application of that rule.Featuring:James S. Burling, Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal FoundationJohn Masslon, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal FoundationMatthew Rice, Solicitor General, Tennessee Attorney General's OfficeZack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation(Moderator) Kirby T. West, Attorney, Institute of Justice

In a momentous turn of events, Oklahoma is squaring off against its top criminal court at the Supreme Court in a case that has captured national attention. The case involves Richard Glossip, a man who has had nine execution dates set over the years. Glossip has even eaten what was meant to be his last meal three times. He was tried twice and has had multiple appeals, making his case one of the most contentious legal battles in recent times. The public interest has grown considerably, with people divided on the corners of law, justice, and human rights.Among the influential figures closely following this curious case are Donald Trump and Jack Smith. These two, while known for their separate endeavors, share a common interest in the fluctuating destiny of Richard Glossip.Donald Trump, the former president of the United States, has never been one to shy away from the spotlight, and this instance is no different. He has been watching the development of events with a hawk-eye and offering his vantage points on social media and interviews. Despite his background in enterprise and politics, Trump's commentary on Glossip's case echoes a sentiment that transcends his usual rhetoric, evidencing a significant concern for the judicial proceedings happening in Oklahoma. Meanwhile, Jack Smith, an esteemed journalist known for his incisive reporting, has been doggedly following the Richard Glossip case, often providing unique insights on his news platform. Smith, known for his unbiased, factual reporting, presents a stark contrast to the controversial figure of Trump. Both figures, however, share a vested interest in this high-profile case.Smith has been diligent in unraveling the complexities of the case. His detailed analysis and regular updates have attracted a wide audience, both domestically and internationally, keen to understand the particulars of this case. His coverage has included in-depth evaluations of the numerous court hearings and appeals, alongside interviews with key legal experts, thereby providing a comprehensive overview of the events as they unfold.In comparison, Donald Trump, with his characteristic flamboyance, has taken a more direct approach. He has consistently voiced his opinions, often taking to Twitter to express his viewpoints. Though these may not resonate with everyone, they undoubtedly stoke public discussion and keep the case in the public eye.The saga of the legal upheaval in Oklahoma, with Richard Glossip at its heart, is far from over. As the tension builds, figures like Donald Trump and Jack Smith continue to play a vital role in continuing the discourse. Their interest, their analyses keep the public gaze fixated on what can be seen as a shifting landscape of justice in America.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in a death row case from Oklahoma. Justices looked at whether the due process rights of death row inmate Richard Glossip were violated when the state suppressed information about its star witness who committed the murder. A court of criminal appeals has denied Glossip's appeal for a retrial. Oklahoma communities correspondent Adam Kemp reports. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

This Day in Legal History: Che Guevara ExecutedOn October 9, 1967, Ernesto "Che" Guevara, a prominent figure in revolutionary movements across Latin America, was executed by Bolivian forces after being captured during a failed guerrilla campaign. Guevara was a key leader in the Cuban Revolution and sought to spread Marxist insurgencies throughout Latin America, hoping to ignite similar revolutions. His execution without a trial, carried out with the assistance of the CIA, became a controversial event, raising questions about the legal treatment of non-state actors under international law.Che Guevara's death highlighted the evolving legal frameworks for dealing with insurgencies, guerrilla warfare, and the rights of captured combatants. At the time, international law, including the Geneva Conventions, offered limited protection to guerrilla fighters, whose status as non-traditional combatants fell outside of established norms for prisoners of war. The Bolivian government's decision to execute Guevara without due process sparked widespread condemnation and intensified debates on the legality of such actions.The legacy of Che Guevara's execution extended far beyond his death, as it became a symbol of the broader struggles for political justice, human rights, and the use of state power to suppress insurgencies. His killing underscored the need for clearer international legal standards governing the treatment of insurgents, contributing to later discussions on how to apply humanitarian law to non-state actors and revolutionaries.The U.S. government may seek to force Google to break up parts of its business, such as its Chrome browser and Android operating system, to address what it argues is an illegal monopoly in online search. A judge found in August that Google's dominance—processing 90% of U.S. searches—violates antitrust laws. The Justice Department's proposed remedies aim to end Google's control over search distribution and prevent its dominance from expanding into artificial intelligence (AI). One suggestion is to stop Google from making billion-dollar payments to device manufacturers like Apple to have its search engine pre-installed as the default. Google plans to appeal, calling the proposals radical, and arguing that users choose its search engine for its quality. The company also claims it faces competition from platforms like Amazon. Additionally, a recent court ruling requires Google to allow more competition in its app store. The Justice Department's more detailed proposal will be submitted in November, and Google can respond by December.The antitrust ruling against Google could have significant consequences for smaller companies like Mozilla, which heavily relies on Google's payments to make its Firefox browser financially viable. If Google is forced to stop paying for default search positions, Mozilla could lose a substantial portion of its revenue—more than $500 million annually—putting its future in jeopardy. This would limit Mozilla's ability to compete with larger players like Apple and Microsoft, and could further consolidate market power in the hands of Big Tech.US considers breakup of Google in landmark search case | ReutersWill Google's historic monopoly lawsuit be the death knell for Mozilla and Firefox? | FortuneThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case of Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, who is seeking to have his conviction overturned for a 1997 murder-for-hire. Glossip, now 61, was convicted of paying Justin Sneed to kill Barry Van Treese, the owner of the motel where Glossip worked. Sneed, who confessed to the murder, testified against Glossip in exchange for avoiding the death penalty. Glossip admits to helping cover up the crime but denies commissioning the murder. Newly uncovered evidence suggests that prosecutors withheld information that could have helped Glossip's defense. Oklahoma's Attorney General, Gentner Drummond, now supports Glossip's appeal, acknowledging flaws in the case, though he still believes Glossip should face some punishment. Due to the attorney general's stance, the Supreme Court appointed an outside lawyer to defend the conviction. The justices are expected to rule by June 2025.US Supreme Court to weigh appeal by Oklahoma death row inmate Glossip | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court is signaling support for President Biden's regulation of "ghost guns," or build-at-home firearm kits, by likely allowing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to regulate these kits as firearms. The rule, introduced in 2022, would require serial numbers, background checks, and record-keeping for gun kits, treating them like fully assembled guns. Challengers, including gun-rights advocates, argue that the rule expands beyond the authority granted by the 1968 Gun Control Act. However, several justices, including Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett, expressed skepticism about the challengers' claims, noting how easily kits can be turned into functioning firearms. The case echoes past legal battles over firearms regulation, such as the one involving bump stocks, and centers on the scope of the ATF's power.Supreme Court Signals Backing for Biden's ‘Ghost Gun' Rule (1) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

It's October, so you know what that means ... spooky season is finally here! And with it, the Supreme Court is back in session, complete with ghosts of the gun variety.In this year's SCOTUS preview, we bring you the cases you need to know. The court will weigh in on a Biden administration rule to redefine firearms to address the public safety risk of ghost guns in America. We delve into the complexities and legal arguments that ignited a heated debate with gun manufacturers and the NRA over what truly constitutes a firearm.The court will also hear about the death penalty case of Richard Glossip, who has faced the specter of execution nine times for a crime he claims he didn't commit. From the dubious testimony of the actual murderer to the systemic failures that have kept Glossip on death row, the case has led even unlikely proponents to question the mechanics of our justice system.And we tackle Tennessee's controversial SB1 law, which bans gender-affirming care for transgender minors. This controversial legislation pits the state's focus on the experimental nature of such treatments against the medical community's endorsement of their necessity. This legal battle doesn't just impact Tennessee; it could reshape the landscape for transgender rights nationwide.Special guests:Don Knight, Richard Glossip's attorneyRobert Dunham, director at the Death Penalty Policy Project and special counsel at Phillips BlackOklahoma state Representative Justin HumphreySasha Buchert, director of the Non-Binary and Transgender Rights Project at Lambda LegalEric Tirschwell, executive director of Everytown LawCody Wilson, director of Defense DistributedKevin Tobia, a professor of law and philosophy at GeorgetownErin Erhardt, litigation counsel at the National Rifle AssociationThis episode was produced by Kirk McDaniel. Intro music by The Dead Pens. Editorial staff is Bill Dotinga, Sean Duffy and Jamie Ross.

Kate, Melissa, and Leah break down the legal fight in Texas at the U.S.-Mexico border, and the Supreme Court's take on it all. Plus, Melissa and Kate do a deep dive on another outlandish era in the Supreme Court's history with Cliff Sloan, author of The Court At War: FDR, His Justices, & The World They Made. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

Death row prisoner Richard Glossip has been scheduled to be executed in Oklahoma nine times since 2015. The courts have delayed his execution each time so that legal challenges could be considered. Now, Glossip is asking the Supreme Court to throw out his 2004 murder conviction and give him a new trial. NewsHour community reporter Adam Kemp joins John Yang to discuss the case. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Death row prisoner Richard Glossip has been scheduled to be executed in Oklahoma nine times since 2015. The courts have delayed his execution each time so that legal challenges could be considered. Now, Glossip is asking the Supreme Court to throw out his 2004 murder conviction and give him a new trial. NewsHour community reporter Adam Kemp joins John Yang to discuss the case. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

A death row inmate in Oklahoma takes his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.Foreclosures are increasing in our state.Northeast Oklahoma is getting a theme park as big as Disneyland.You can find the KOSU Daily wherever you get your podcasts, you can also subscribe, rate us and leave a comment.You can keep up to date on all the latest news throughout the day at KOSU.org and make sure to follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram at KOSU Radio.This is The KOSU Daily, Oklahoma news, every weekday.

No topic, save maybe abortion, engenders more debate than that of Execution in our penal system. The arguments on both sides are intense, but I think it's safe to say that both sides do not want an innocent man or woman to fall victim to the “Final Judgement.” As they say on LAW AND ORDER, “the case at bar” is that of Richard Eugene Glossip of Oklahoma. Mr. Glossip has been on death row for over 26 years for a murder he did not commit. In that time, he has had his execution date stayed 3 times, once when he was actually strapped to the gurney. Here's the twist. He's innocent! Now you don't have to take my word for it. The various prosecuting authorities that have had a hand in this case say he is innocent to the degree that some were behind the latest stay, that was just granted by the Supreme Court as they head out of town at the end of the session. Is this a miscarriage of justice or just how the “system” works? My guest today is Republican Oklahoma State Representative, and death penalty proponent, Kevin McDugle. For the last 4 years, he has been an ardent advocate for Mr. Glossip in his fight for his life.

Drought across the Midwest and the Plains means pastures aren't as green as usual… leaving cattle with less to eat.The rate of Oklahomans seeking abortion services across state lines skyrocketed last year after the state legislature began enforcing bans on the procedure. The City of Oklahoma City is looking for volunteers to collect data as part of a national project studying heat in urban areas. Last week, the 10th circuit court of appeals sided with Justin Hooper who challenged the City of Tulsa's ability to issue him a speeding ticket-saying they lacked jurisdiction. Just days after the ruling Tulsa mayor G.T. Bynum says he wants to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. You can find the KOSU Daily wherever you get your podcasts. You can also subscribe, rate us and leave a comment. Keep up to date with the latest news throughout the day on KOSU.org - and make sure to follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram @KOSURadio. This is the KOSU Daily, Oklahoma news every weekday.

Lisa and Kyle continue their review of the case against Richard Glossip, who was convicted of the 1997 murder-for-hire of his boss, Barry Van Treese. In Part 2, they talked about the 2022 propaganda campaign being waged by his advocates in the media and his 2022 state post-conviction claims. They continued their discussion of the two writs currently pending at the U.S. Supreme Court, the result of the Oklahoma Attorney General's “independent” investigation that we learned was directed by Reed Smith and, by extension, Don Knight and the disposition of Glossip's 2023 state post-conviction application, the shenanigans involved in that process, Glossip's clemency hearing and his challenge to those proceedings in the Oklahoma County district court. Finally, they talked about Glossip's 2nd writ pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In May, the US Supreme Court granted Richard Glossip a stay of execution after the Attorney General of Oklahoma has gone to believe like many others that Glossip's conviction is fatally flaw, “unsustainable” and “a new trial imperative.” Many have argued that new evidence discovered in independent investigations along with problems with the state's prosecution and the destruction of evidence leads to the conclusion that there was not enough evidence to warrant a conviction, let alone a death sentence. And yet, as is so often the case, the wheels of the system once rolling have proven difficult to stop. This week on Everyday Injustice, we talk to attorney and anti-death penalty advocate David Dow about the Glossip case and how it exemplifies problems in the overall system. David Dow went from a death penalty supporter to founding the Texas Innocence Network and running a death penalty clinic. He has since written a number of books, including Executed on a Technicality.

Melissa, Kate, and Leah cover the gift that keeps on giving-- a.k.a. billionaire Harlan Crow, who can't seem to stop giving undisclosed gifts to Justice Clarence Thomas. They continue the discussion on the deluge of stories about questionable ethics at the Supreme Court following a report that said Leonard Leo arranged for Ginni Thomas to be paid tens of thousands of dollars for "consulting work". The cherry on top? Two recent Supreme Court opinions about political corruption and fraud. Finally, they are joined by John Mills, an attorney for Richard Glossip, who was sentenced to death for a crime for which there is powerful evidence he did not commit.Listen to an interview with Justin Elliott, one of the ProPublica reporters who broke the news about Harlan Crow and Justice Thomas.The hosts covered the arguments of the opinions for Percoco v. US and Ciminelli v. US in this episode.In this episode, the hosts discussed the arguments for Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, another one of the opinions discussed.This past episode discusses the arguments for National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, an opinion the hosts talk about this week.Follow @CrookedMedia on Instagram and Twitter for more original content, host takeovers and other community events. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

The Supreme Court on Friday blocked Oklahoma from executing death row inmate Richard Glossip for his role in a 1997 murder-for-hire after the state's attorney general agreed Glossip's life should be spared. Rep. Kevin McDugle, R-Broken Arrow, said that he is for the death penalty, but "if they kill Richard Glossip, you will see me running every bit of legislation to kill the death penalty in Oklahoma, because if we can't trust the system then we have to vacate what we're doing. We have to be able to trust the system." Related content: Richard Glossip supporters, including Dr. Phil, rally at state Capitol DAs share concerns on Oklahoma AG's handling of death penalty case Supreme Court blocks Richard Glossip's execution Richard Glossip sues Pardon and Parole Board over split vote to deny clemency Gov. Stitt indicates no plan to intervene in Glossip execution as faith leaders plead for mercy Conservative Oklahoma lawmakers call for moratorium on death penalty From June 2020: Oklahoma death-row inmate Richard Glossip wrongfully convicted, third-party probe finds Rep. Kevin McDugle column from September 2020: Either we get the death penalty right, or we don't do it Click here to submit a letter to the editor Contact us Editorial Editor Ginnie Graham: Email | Twitter | Follow her stories Subscribe to this podcast at: Apple | Google | SpotifySupport the show: https://tulsaworld.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Richard Glossip has been on death row for 26 years and stared down nine execution dates. The 1997 killing that sent him to death row has been investigated numerous times and the actual killer—who brutally bludgeoned a motel owner with a baseball bat—has even sought to recant his testimony against Glossip. Over the decades, anti-death penalty activists and a growing number of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have spoken out to save Richard Glossip. But now his case is in the Supreme Court's hands. Guests:  Liliana Segura, investigative journalist at The Intercept focused on prisons and harsh sentencing. Mark Joseph Stern, Slate senior writer covering courts and the law. If you enjoy this show, please consider signing up for Slate Plus. Slate Plus members get benefits like zero ads on any Slate podcast, bonus episodes of shows like Slow Burn and Amicus—and you'll be supporting the work we do here on What Next. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to help support our work. Make an impact this Asian American & Pacific Islander Heritage Month by helping Macy's on their mission to fund APIA Scholars. Go to macys.com/purpose to learn more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Richard Glossip has been on death row for 26 years and stared down nine execution dates. The 1997 killing that sent him to death row has been investigated numerous times and the actual killer—who brutally bludgeoned a motel owner with a baseball bat—has even sought to recant his testimony against Glossip. Over the decades, anti-death penalty activists and a growing number of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have spoken out to save Richard Glossip. But now his case is in the Supreme Court's hands. Guests:  Liliana Segura, investigative journalist at The Intercept focused on prisons and harsh sentencing. Mark Joseph Stern, Slate senior writer covering courts and the law. If you enjoy this show, please consider signing up for Slate Plus. Slate Plus members get benefits like zero ads on any Slate podcast, bonus episodes of shows like Slow Burn and Amicus—and you'll be supporting the work we do here on What Next. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to help support our work. Make an impact this Asian American & Pacific Islander Heritage Month by helping Macy's on their mission to fund APIA Scholars. Go to macys.com/purpose to learn more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Richard Glossip has been on death row for 26 years and stared down nine execution dates. The 1997 killing that sent him to death row has been investigated numerous times and the actual killer—who brutally bludgeoned a motel owner with a baseball bat—has even sought to recant his testimony against Glossip. Over the decades, anti-death penalty activists and a growing number of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have spoken out to save Richard Glossip. But now his case is in the Supreme Court's hands. Guests:  Liliana Segura, investigative journalist at The Intercept focused on prisons and harsh sentencing. Mark Joseph Stern, Slate senior writer covering courts and the law. If you enjoy this show, please consider signing up for Slate Plus. Slate Plus members get benefits like zero ads on any Slate podcast, bonus episodes of shows like Slow Burn and Amicus—and you'll be supporting the work we do here on What Next. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to help support our work. Make an impact this Asian American & Pacific Islander Heritage Month by helping Macy's on their mission to fund APIA Scholars. Go to macys.com/purpose to learn more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Thanks for calling Stitty Britches and letting him know we don't execute innocent people around here, and he needs to drag his ass back to Florida with Markwoman Mullin and Trumpy!!!!!

This episode contains graphic depictions of an execution. Please take care while listening.If you're not a 5-4 Premium member, you're not hearing every episode! To get exclusive Premium-only episodes, discounts on merch, access to our Slack community, and more, join at fivefourpod.com/support.5 to 4 is presented by Prologue Projects. Rachel Ward is our producer. Leon Neyfakh and Andrew Parsons provide editorial support. Our production manager is Percia Verlin, and our assistant producer is Arlene Arevalo. Our website was designed by Peter Murphy. Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks at Chips NY, and our theme song is by Spatial Relations.Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.