By John Kruzel
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court is set on Wednesday to hear arguments in Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip's bid to vacate his conviction for a 1997 murder-for-hire based on his claim that prosecutors wrongly withheld evidence that could help his defense.
Glossip, now 61, is asking the justices to grant him a new trial after an Oklahoma court upheld his conviction despite potentially exculpatory evidence being recently uncovered.
Glossip was convicted of commissioning the murder of Barry Van Treese, owner of the Best Budget Inn motel in Oklahoma City where Glossip was a manager. All parties agree Van Treese was beaten to death with a baseball bat by maintenance worker Justin Sneed. Sneed confessed to the murder but avoided capital punishment by accepting a plea deal that involved testifying that Glossip paid him $10,000 to do it.
Securing a murder conviction against Glossip hinged on the testimony of Sneed, who was a methamphetamine addict, and the reliability of his account. Glossip admitted to helping Sneed cover up the murder after it occurred, but denied knowing that Sneed planned to kill Van Treese or encouraging him to do so.
Gentner Drummond, Oklahoma's Republican attorney general, became an unlikely ally of Glossip after he concluded prosecutors hid evidence that might have led to an acquittal. Although Drummond said he believes Glossip's role in covering up Van Treese's murder makes him at least an "accessory after the fact," justifying a long prison sentence, Glossip's murder conviction was too flawed for him to defend.
Glossip is represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman in Wednesday's arguments. Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general, is representing the Oklahoma attorney general's office in the case.
Because Oklahoma's attorney general is supporting Glossip's appeal, the Supreme Court had to take the rare step of tapping an outside lawyer - private attorney Christopher Michel - to argue that Glossip's conviction should be upheld.
Michel in his Supreme Court brief sought to rebut the claim by Glossip's lawyers that the newly disclosed information had undermined Sneed's credibility or the prosecution's handling of the case. Michel also argued that the justices should defer to the Oklahoma court's ruling to uphold Glossip's conviction based on that state's law that places limits on post-conviction legal efforts.
The victim's family, represented by former federal judge Paul Cassell, filed a brief with the Supreme Court saying, "The truth here is that no evidence was suppressed and Glossip commissioned the murder of Barry Van Treese."
The Supreme Court last year halted Glossip's scheduled execution while his appeal was pending. The justices are expected to issue their ruling by the end of June.