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