The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned the murder conviction and death sentence of Richard Glossip, an Oklahoma man who has long maintained his innocence in the 1997 killing of a motel owner. The ruling delivers a significant legal victory for Glossip, who has spent more than 25 years on death row and narrowly avoided execution multiple times.

Glossip’s wife, Lea, described the decision as “an answered prayer.” The 62-year-old has been incarcerated for nearly half his life for his alleged role in the killing of Barry Van Treese, a motel owner in Oklahoma City. 

In a ruling that saw a rare alliance between Glossip’s legal team and Oklahoma’s Republican attorney general, the court found that prosecutors violated his constitutional right to a fair trial by permitting false testimony from a key witness. 

“Glossip is entitled to a new trial,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor on behalf of the majority. 

The decision was not unanimous. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, arguing that the conviction and death sentence should stand. Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed that the appellate ruling should be overturned but believed the case should be reconsidered by a state court. 

Thomas criticized the majority for disregarding the wishes of Van Treese’s family, who had urged the Supreme Court to uphold Glossip’s sentence. A message left for Van Treese’s brother was not immediately returned. 

Glossip’s attorney, Don Knight, praised the ruling as a step toward fairness. 

“Today was a victory for justice and fairness in our judicial system,” Knight said. “Rich Glossip, who has maintained his innocence for 27 years, will now be given the chance to have the fair trial that he has always been denied.” 

In a text to The Associated Press, Glossip’s wife described their reaction: 

“Rich and I opened the decision together on the phone this morning, knowing it would be a life-changing moment. To say that we are overcome with emotion is an understatement. We are deeply grateful.” 

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who had supported Glossip’s bid for a new trial, said Glossip would remain incarcerated until the state determines its next steps. 

“I do not believe Richard Glossip is innocent,” Drummond stated, while also acknowledging the flaws in the original trial. However, he noted the difficulty of retrying the case decades later. 

Drummond and Oklahoma County District Attorney Vicki Behenna will decide whether to pursue a retrial. Behenna has previously indicated that the death penalty would not be sought. 

Oklahoma’s top criminal appeals court had repeatedly upheld Glossip’s conviction and sentence—even after state officials acknowledged errors in his case. 

Glossip was convicted of orchestrating the killing of Van Treese, who was bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat. Prosecutors claimed Glossip, a motel employee, hired another man, Justin Sneed, to carry out the murder in exchange for $10,000. 

Sneed, who confessed to the killing, testified against Glossip in exchange for a life sentence. His testimony was central to the state’s case. 

In 2023, Attorney General Drummond acknowledged that newly uncovered evidence had cast serious doubt on Glossip’s conviction. Documents revealed that prosecutors allowed Sneed to provide false testimony about his psychiatric condition and his use of lithium, a mood-stabilizing drug.

Additionally, a crucial box of evidence—including motel receipts, a shower curtain, and masking tape—had been destroyed. Defense attorneys argue that these materials could have bolstered Glossip’s claims of innocence. 

Over the years, Glossip has repeatedly come within hours of execution. Oklahoma scheduled his execution nine times, and he prepared for three separate “last meals.” 

In 2015, the Supreme Court halted his execution while considering a challenge to Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol. However, the justices ultimately ruled against him in a 5-4 decision. His execution was only stopped due to a drug mix-up. 

Glossip was initially convicted in 1998, but a state appeals court later ordered a new trial. He was convicted again in 2004. 

The Supreme Court’s latest ruling reopens the case, setting the stage for a potential retrial—or a long-overdue resolution for a man who has fought for his life for nearly three decades.