Supreme Court hears argument in Glossip v. Oklahoma over withheld records and waiver of state procedural bar

The Supreme Court heard argument in Glossip v. Oklahoma (No. 227466), a case in which petitioner Richard Glossop contends his conviction should be vacated after the state disclosed records showing key witness Justin Snead received psychiatric treatment and was prescribed lithium, and that prosecutors elicited or permitted false testimony about those facts.

Mister Waxman, arguing for Glossop, told the Court that "Oklahoma has now disclosed evidence revealing that mister Snead lied to the jury about his history of psychiatric treatment, including the fact that a prison psychiatrist prescribed lithium" and said the state's own record shows Snead changed his testimony midtrial "at the urgent request of the prosecutor who then falsely denied to the court her prior knowledge." He urged this Court to "reverse and remand for a new trial." (Counsel's phrasing summarized from the joint appendix and argument record.)

The arguments turned on two linked questions: whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) rested its decision on an "adequate and independent" state ground (the procedural bar in 10-89) that would deprive this Court of jurisdiction, and—if this Court reaches the federal question—whether the suppression of records and elicitation of false testimony violated Brady or Napue.

Several justices pressed on the provenance and weight of a set of…