A few notable new criminal cases on the latest SCOTUS "relist watch"

The latest Relist Watch by John Elwood over at SCOTUSblog, titled "The long conference’s relists," concludes with a few criminal cases. Here is most of the description of these cases, which are now much more likely to lead to a cert grant or at least some significant comment from some Justice:

Justin Sneed murdered Barry Van Treese, owner of an Oklahoma City motel, in one of the guest rooms. Sneed implicated Richard Glossip, the motel’s manager, claiming that Glossip had paid him to kill Van Treese.  On the strength of Sneed’s testimony, Glossip was convicted and sentenced to death.  However, the prosecution failed to disclose to the defense important information undercutting Sneed’s credibility (that he was under the care of a psychiatrist), and failed to correct Sneed’s testimony that it knew to be false.  Before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the state confessed error and said Glossip’s conviction should be vacated, though the attorney general still believed Glossip to be culpable.  But the Oklahoma court denied relief, saying that relief was still barred by “limitations on successive post-conviction review,” since Glossip had unsuccessfully sought post-conviction review numerous times before. In two separate petitions captioned Glossip v. Oklahoma (resulting from Glossip’s fourth and fifth applications to that court for post-conviction relief), Glossip now seeks relief from the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court stayed his execution in May 2023 pending these petitions, so this case will clearly receive close attention.

Johnson v. Prentice: In most prisons, those held in solitary confinement are still allowed regular exercise.  However, exercise can be denied for a period in response to misconduct. Beginning in March 2013, Michael Johnson, a state prisoner in Illinois convicted of murder, was held in solitary confinement for over three years.  Johnson had been diagnosed by prison officials with a host of mental illnesses.  But because of repeated misconduct, Johnson had only a handful of hours in which he was permitted to exercise over the course of three years. He spent the rest of that period alone in a small cell, which for stretches was windowless. Johnson sued prison officials for violating his civil rights.  The district court entered summary judgment for the state; a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirmed.  Rehearing en banc was denied by an equally divided vote.  Johnson asks the court to resolve whether denying virtually all exercise violates the Eighth Amendment absent a security justification.

Thornell v. Jones, our last case, is a petition filed by Arizona arguing that the 9th Circuit erred in granting habeas relief to Danny Lee Jones on the ground that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance at his trial for beating two people to death.  Arizona argues that the court improperly granted no deference to the district court’s detailed factual findings to the contrary.  A total of 10 judges dissented from the court’s denial of rehearing en banc.  The state seeks summary reversal, and the justices plainly are giving the case a close look.