Document Type

Article

Publication Date

4-17-2026

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Glossip v. Oklahoma was heralded as a victory for the defense. This essay argues that the 2025 Glossip decision does little to fix the myriad problems that led to Mr. Glossip’s wrongful conviction. While ultimately the Supreme Court reached the correct outcome this time, the ordinary judicial process and its purported safeguards were not what saved Mr. Glossip’s life. Rather, it was random chance that came to Mr. Glossip’s aid.

Ten years earlier, the Supreme Court, with many of the same Justices on the bench now, paved the way for Mr. Glossip’s execution. The Court’s decision in Glossip v. Gross approved Oklahoma’s death-penalty-medication protocol. Then, through what appears to be an accident of incompetence, Oklahoma obtained the wrong court-sanctioned medication for use in executions, and Mr. Glossip was spared. The mix-up resulted in a moratorium on the death penalty in Oklahoma for several years. These facts appear nowhere in the Court’s 2025 decision.

But with the passage of time, it was revealed that there was prosecutorial misconduct hidden from the defense and only exposed subsequent to the 2015 decision. Mr. Glossip easily could have been put to death and the Oklahoma’s Due Process violations would never been uncovered. This essay shows that the story of Mr. Glossip’s arduous path to the Supreme Court and the Court’s decision together map out deep injustices in the criminal legal system.

Publication Citation

Yale Law Journal Forum, Vol. 135, Pp. 899-921.

Download

Share

COinS