Glossip v. Oklahoma
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Glossip v. Oklahoma and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Glossip v. Oklahoma.
The Supreme Court reviewed Richard Glossip's conviction, focusing on the prosecution's failure to correct false testimony by key witness Justin Sneed. The Court found that the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation under Napue v. Illinois by allowing false testimony to remain uncorrected, affecting the jury's judgment. The case was reversed and remanded due to the procedural errors and prosecutorial misconduct.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Glossip v. Oklahoma.
The Court held that the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony, warranting a new trial for Richard Glossip.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Glossip v. Oklahoma. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Glossip v. Oklahoma
The case involves the prosecution's failure to correct false testimony, which implicates the defendant's right to fair procedures under the Due Process Clause.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Under Napue, a conviction obtained through the knowing use of false evidence violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Glossip v. Oklahoma
The Supreme Court exercised its power of judicial review to assess whether the state court's application of procedural bars was consistent with federal constitutional law.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)This Court has jurisdiction to review the OCCA's judgment.
-
Why Right to Counsel is relevant to Glossip v. Oklahoma
The case discusses ineffective assistance of counsel in challenging key testimony, which is a component of the right to counsel.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) overturned that conviction because the defense had been ineffective in challenging Sneed's testimony.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Glossip v. Oklahoma that support the summary and concepts above.
The prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony.
The jury's assessment of Sneed's credibility was material and necessarily determinative.
The prosecution's failure to correct Sneed's false testimony entitles Glossip to a new trial under Napue.
