« "Measuring Punishment Severity" | Main | The Sentencing Project releases "Locked Out 2024: Four Million Denied Voting Rights Due to a Felony Conviction" »
October 9, 2024
Supreme Court reveals (predictable) split during argument on Glossip capital case
Supreme Court watchers who know the current Justices' patterns, especially in capital cases, would have expected Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh to be likely key swing votes in the Glossip case argued today (previewed here). This round-up of some press accounts of today's Glossip argument suggest those Justices are likely to deterimine the case's fate:
From NPR, "Okla. AG seeks new trial for death row inmate, but Supreme Court seems split"
From SCOTUSblog, "No clear decision as justices debate Richard Glossip’s death sentence"
From the New York Times, "Splintered Supreme Court Wrestles With Case of Oklahoma Death Row Inmate"
From the Washington Examiner, "Supreme Court appears divided over Oklahoma death row appeal"
From the Washington Post, "Supreme Court closely divided on new trial for Oklahoma death row inmate"
October 9, 2024 at 11:20 PM | Permalink
Comments
The transcript is so surreal.
Posted by: federalist | Oct 10, 2024 1:12:58 PM
Something in particular, Federalist? (I have a lot of trouble with PDF, it's a format my screen reader doesn't care for, particularly with recent tools from Adobe).
Posted by: Soronel Haetir | Oct 10, 2024 3:05:54 PM
Just the kabuki theater of it all. This guy is guilty. It's not close to clear that there is a Brady/Napue violation, and the questions are so picayune in nature.
Posted by: federalist | Oct 10, 2024 5:17:09 PM
If you want surreal, read the transcript in the ghost gun case. Discussion of random food ingredients vs. food prep kits.
Posted by: tmm | Oct 10, 2024 5:26:51 PM
I could see a weird split with no majority opinion on which Glossip gets a majority on each of the issues but still loses.
In other words, three justices find that the state had a valid procedural bar but find some merits to the substantive claims; three justices find no procedural bar but no merits to the substantive claims; and three find no procedural bar and claims have merit.
Posted by: tmm | Oct 11, 2024 10:51:20 AM