Oklahoma Parole Board Denies Clemency for Death Row Prisoner Richard Glossip

We communicate with investigative reporter Liliana Segura in regards to the exceptional case of Oklahoma demise row inmate Richard Glossip, whose execution is about for Might 18. Oklahoma’s Pardon and Parole Board on Wednesday denied Glossip clemency though Oklahoma’s personal Republican legal professional basic has sought to vacate Glossip’s conviction. Glossip has at all times maintained his innocence. The case dates again to 1997, when Glossip was working as a motel supervisor in Oklahoma Metropolis and his boss, Barry Van Treese, was murdered. A upkeep employee, Justin Sneed, admitted to beating Van Treese to demise with a baseball bat, however claimed Glossip provided him cash for the killing. The case rested virtually totally on Sneed’s claims, and no bodily proof tied Glossip to the crime. Sneed, in change for his testimony, didn’t get the demise penalty. “From the start, the proof on this case was weak,” says Segura, a senior reporter for The Intercept who has been following the case since 2015.

TRANSCRIPT

It is a rush transcript. Copy might not be in its remaining kind.

AMY GOODMAN: We start right now’s present in Oklahoma, the place the state’s Pardon and Parole Board has denied clemency for demise row prisoner Richard Glossip, though Oklahoma’s personal legal professional basic has sought to vacate Glossip’s conviction. On Wednesday, Oklahoma’s Republican Lawyer Basic Gentner Drummond took the bizarre step of becoming a member of Glossip’s protection staff in arguing for clemency, however the Pardon and Parole Board voted 2 to 2 to disclaim clemency regardless of widespread doubt over Glossip’s guilt. An execution date has now been set for Might 18th.

That is a part of what Oklahoma’s legal professional basic advised the parole board.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GENTNER DRUMMOND: I need to acknowledge how uncommon it’s for the state to assist a clemency software of a demise row inmate. I’m not conscious of any time in our historical past that an legal professional basic has appeared earlier than this board and argued for clemency. I’m additionally not conscious of any time within the historical past of Oklahoma when justice would require it.

In the end, that’s the reason we’re right here, everybody on this room. We’re right here to see that justice is completed. We might have totally different opinions on what justice appears to be like like on this case, and I totally respect these variations. However in the long run, that’s what we should have.

For me, because the state’s chief legislation enforcement officer, I have to be primarily contemplating what justice is for the state of Oklahoma. And that’s what has compelled me to commit hours, numerous hours, of my time inspecting the info on this case. And it’s that sense of justice that has compelled me to launch supplies to the protection staff which have been lengthy withheld. I used to be involved sufficient by the analysis that I had noticed that I ought to retain an unbiased counsel to conduct a complete assessment.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Oklahoma’s Lawyer Basic Gentner Drummond urging the Oklahoma parole board to grant clemency to Richard Glossip, who has at all times maintained his innocence.

His case dates again to 1997, when Glossip was working as a supervisor on the Greatest Funds Inn in Oklahoma Metropolis, when his boss, Barry Van Treese, was murdered. A upkeep employee, Justin Sneed, admitted he beat Van Treese to demise with a baseball bat, however claimed Glossip provided him cash for the killing. The case rested virtually solely on Sneed’s claims. No bodily proof ever tied Glossip to the crime. And Sneed, in change for his testimony, didn’t get the demise penalty.

We go now to Oklahoma Metropolis, the place we’re joined by the award-winning investigative reporter Liliana Segura. She’s a senior reporter for The Intercept. She has intently coated Richard Glossip’s case since 2015.

Liliana, welcome again to Democracy Now! Clarify how uncommon what occurred yesterday was, and go extra deeply into the Glossip case.

LILIANA SEGURA: Nicely, thanks a lot for having me, Amy. And, you realize, your introduction did a very good job laying out a few of the fundamentals about this case.

To be completely sincere, I’m nonetheless making an attempt to course of what occurred yesterday, as a result of it was so uncommon — not solely uncommon, however fully surprising. Three weeks in the past, these of us following the case, these of us — these folks concerned on this case actually didn’t anticipate that this clemency listening to would go ahead. Gentner Drummond, as he stated, had taken the very uncommon step of submitting a movement earlier than the Oklahoma Courtroom of Legal Appeals asking the court docket to vacate Glossip’s conviction and ship it again to Oklahoma Metropolis for a brand new trial, that the Oklahoma Metropolis DA had made very clear that this was a case that was in all probability not going to be retried and that — and Richard Glossip was actually able the place he was capable of think about a potential eventual launch, life exterior of jail partitions. And virtually as shortly as that occurred, you realize, issues simply kind of modified impulsively. The court docket unexpectedly rejected the legal professional basic’s movement, after which, reasonably than intervene to cease the clemency listening to from going ahead, as Governor Stitt has carried out earlier than, the clemency listening to did happen.

And on Wednesday, yesterday morning, I attended a packed listening to the place Gentner Drummond, together with Rex Duncan, the previous prosecutor who undertook an unbiased investigation into this case, each spoke about why they consider that this execution mustn’t go ahead. Rex Duncan stated, “That is, you realize, a primary for me. I’m not normally right here to agree with the protection.” And so, when the board members got here again on the very finish with this 2-to-2 vote, which successfully denies clemency, everybody was shocked. It was a very gorgeous second. And I believe a whole lot of us are nonetheless waking up this morning making an attempt to know what actually occurred.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Nicely, Liliana, might you speak about a few of the particulars which have emerged via the years of destroyed proof by the state, misstatements by key witnesses, what the premise of even the advice by the legal professional basic to — for clemency? May you speak in regards to the specifics?

LILIANA SEGURA: Completely. And let me simply say, as a result of there’s no strategy to cowl all of it, that is actually a case that’s taken an amazing variety of twists and turns. In case your viewers and listeners need to go deep into this case, I might urge them to take a look at the coverage that my colleague Jordan Smith and I’ve produced going again to 2015. It’s multi functional place at The Intercept. I might additionally urge them to observe the 2017 four-part documentary by Joe Berlinger referred to as Killing Richard Glossip, that additionally goes into these questions. And, actually, it’s a part of the rationale, a big half the rationale, that documentary sequence, that a variety of very outstanding right-wing lawmakers right here in Oklahoma have taken on this case as a marketing campaign for them.

However to reply your query extra straight, you realize, from the start, this case — the proof on this case was weak. As you highlighted, this story of Richard Glossip being the mastermind behind this homicide got here solely from Justin Sneed. There have been two trials. The primary trial in — the primary conviction in 1998 was truly overturned in 2001 on the grounds that Glossip acquired ineffective help of counsel. One of many vital errors that Glossip’s attorneys made was their failure to indicate the jury a very astonishing videotape which confirmed how two Oklahoma Metropolis police detectives had interrogated Justin Sneed and, actually, named Glossip one thing like six occasions earlier than Justin Sneed ever claimed that Glossip had put him as much as this. The detectives have been telling Sneed, you realize, “We all know there’s extra to this. He’s setting you up.” They named Richard Glossip. And Sneed, finally, you see on this tape, goes alongside and helps create this narrative that has outlined this case ever since. And so, that was all identified. That’s been identified for years and years.

Richard Glossip got here very shut in 2015 to being executed. And at the moment, witnesses had come ahead to say, “Wait a minute, Justin Sneed was portrayed as this hapless, clueless form of follower who did something that Richard Glossip would say. That couldn’t have been farther from the reality.” , those that knew him and had met him in jail stated that Sneed admitted, boasted even, that he had gotten away with one thing that Glossip was dealing with the demise penalty for. So, there’s rather a lot that has been identified.

However by way of the latest revelations, this has come out largely over the course of the previous 12 months. In some years again, these right-wing lawmakers — or, a bipartisan group, however largely spearheaded by conservative lawmakers in Oklahoma — have been urging for the governor, for the parole board to take a better take a look at Glossip’s case. And when these efforts failed, they sought a legislation agency that will undertake an unbiased investigation. And this was carried out by a legislation agency named Reed Smith, took on the case professional bono, devoted numerous hours, interviewed some 40 witnesses, dozens of people that have been by no means interviewed by the police, checked out the entire data and, certainly, acquired stuff that had by no means been turned over earlier than.

And a few of the extra — a few of the most explosive revelations within the Reed Smith report, which got here out final 12 months, was that, for instance, Justin Sneed had truly sought to recant his testimony between the primary and the second trial. There are letters to his legal professional asking, you realize, how he can undo this deal that he made, you realize, kind of expressing a way of remorse virtually. And this was additionally kind of identified. , again years again, Justin Sneed’s personal daughter had come ahead saying that her father was regretting the truth that he had despatched — helped ship Richard Glossip to demise row. So, these letters from Sneed, that’s one vital piece of proof.

There’s additionally a whole lot of proof that, it seems, was destroyed between the primary and the second trial. This included monetary data that have been vital, as a result of these data would have undercut the state’s idea of this crime, which was that Glossip wished to eliminate Barry Van Treese in order that he might take over the motel, which was actually — these monetary data, people who weren’t destroyed, those that we now have since seen, actually go a good distance in debunking that idea. So, this proof that was destroyed, one of many prosecutors on the second trial who assisted the lead prosecutor has since stated again and again that that is horrifying to them — to him, that this could by no means have occurred. This shouldn’t occur in demise penalty circumstances.

AMY GOODMAN: Liliana, we need to flip to Richard Glossip in his personal phrases, talking remotely at his clemency listening to on Wednesday.

RICHARD GLOSSIP: First, I need the Van Treese household to understand how horrible I really feel for what they’ve gone via. What your loved ones has gone via, no household ought to ever should endure. I need to say once more via this listening to that I didn’t learn about Justin Sneed’s plan to commit any crime in opposition to Barry Van Treese, and I might have by no means considered paying anyone to commit a criminal offense. I completely didn’t trigger Justin Sneed to commit any crime in opposition to Mr. Van Treese, not to mention to homicide him. I do know that within the chaos of Mr. Van Treese’s demise, I made errors in how I responded. I’m deeply sorry that in my concern and confusion I triggered anybody any additional hurt. Right this moment I need to thank many individuals who’ve taken the time to take a look at this case intently and to take a stand about it.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Richard Glossip talking at his clemency listening to. As we start to wrap up, Liliana, are you able to inform us what this Pardon and Parole Board is? The two-to-2 vote — how does a divided vote result in his demise? And what in regards to the governor’s stance, Governor Stitt?

LILIANA SEGURA: Sure, to be sincere, that’s a query that each one of us are asking ourselves and making an attempt to grasp. One of many subsequent steps that Glossip’s lawyer, Don Knight, is taking is to problem that very setup. It’s vital to grasp that it is a five-member board. One of many board members, Richard Smothermon, recused himself as a result of his spouse, Connie Smothermon, prosecuted Glossip and despatched him to demise row. So, that recusal was completely acceptable. What makes completely no sense is that the ensuing vote nonetheless requires — that is 4 folks voting — it nonetheless requires three votes in favor of clemency. And so, a 2-to-2 tie, because it seems, is weighted in favor of the nos. And so, that wants — that’s being challenged.

So far as the board’s make-up, you realize, it is a five-member board. Three of the board members are appointed by Stitt. Two of the others are appointed by two totally different courts, together with the Oklahoma Courtroom of Legal Appeals, that has repeatedly refused to think about the proof of Glossip’s innocence. So, all of those boards are political. However, once more, we weren’t anticipating this end result in any respect. It is a extreme blow, and it was a very astonishing second, after this three-hour listening to, to listen to it end in that manner.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Liliana, I wished to ask you, what was the — the sufferer’s household additionally spoke on the board assembly. May you speak about what they stated, as nicely?

LILIANA SEGURA: Completely. So, you realize, like I discussed, Richard Glossip had confronted execution about — that is his ninth execution date, however he had come extraordinarily shut in 2015. Previous to that, there was a clemency listening to in 2014 the place the widow of Barry Van Treese, Donna Van Treese, spoke in regards to the influence of her husband’s homicide. , that they had a number of younger youngsters. She stated what victims’ relations usually stated, that this was, you realize, a loss that was indescribable, that severely impacted her household and continues to. So, she repeated a whole lot of what she shared, as did different relations.

However in addition they described a deep sense of betrayal at this concept that the state, reasonably than arguing because it principally at all times does in favor of this execution, that the highest legislation enforcement officer within the state was truly saying that he didn’t need to see this execution proceed. And that was, you realize, in some methods comprehensible. However as your clip that you simply performed early on demonstrates, the job of the legal professional basic isn’t to fulfill the needs and feelings of the sufferer’s household; it’s to do justice for the folks of Oklahoma. And that features Richard Glossip and his family members.

And so, that was a very tough factor to take heed to, as a result of — nicely, in that second, you realize, all of us empathize with the ache of the sufferer’s household, however I personally was feeling like we have been going to listen to a vote in favor of clemency. And so, once more, it’s simply — it’s actually disorienting to search out ourselves right here.

AMY GOODMAN: Lastly, Liliana, the state of Oklahoma goes to — is pushing via, what, one thing like two dozen executions within the subsequent two years, this one being one in every of them?

LILIANA SEGURA: Nicely, actually, yeah, that had been the plan below Gentner Drummond’s predecessor. Very tellingly, Gentner Drummond, who got here into workplace in January, one in every of his first strikes was not solely to launch this unbiased probe into Richard Glossip’s case, but in addition to decelerate this frenzied execution schedule. And so, there are nonetheless lots of people in line to be executed after Richard Glossip over the subsequent couple of years, however he explicitly stated, after attending the primary execution of the 12 months in January, that this schedule was untenable, that it was taking a toll on the workers of the Division of Corrections, who’re tasked with finishing up these executions, and that he wished to decelerate these executions. So, the Oklahoma Courtroom of Legal Appeals grudgingly allowed this modification within the schedule, however, sure, Oklahoma continues to execute folks. And there are — I must also say that there are a whole lot of issues with the circumstances that can observe Richard Glossip’s execution date.

AMY GOODMAN: We simply have 10 seconds. Does Richard Glossip’s case go to the Supreme Courtroom?

LILIANA SEGURA: Sure, that, completely, it will likely be earlier than the court docket to assessment.

AMY GOODMAN: Liliana Segura, senior reporter for The Intercept, has coated Richard Glossip’s case since 2015. You’ll be able to go to _Intercept_’s web site to see the entire coverage. She was talking to us from Oklahoma Metropolis.

Arising, 200 years in the past, the U.S. declared all of Latin America inside its sphere of affect. We’ll take a look at a rising push for the U.S. to lastly revoke the Monroe Doctrine, which has been repeatedly used to justify scores of invasions, interventions, CIA regime adjustments within the Americas. Stick with us.

(break)

AMY GOODMAN: “Oh Freedom,” Harry Belafonte. He died at his dwelling Tuesday in New York on the age of 96. To see our full show on Harry Belafonte in his personal phrases, go to democracynow.org.