Richard Glossip to Remain in Custody as He Awaits New Trial After Supreme Court Overturns Murder Conviction

Richard Glossip, a former Oklahoma death row inmate whose case has become one of the most contentious and closely watched in the United States, will remain behind bars while he awaits a new trial. This comes after a state judge denied his request for release on bond, despite the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year overturning his conviction and death sentence.

In a ruling issued Wednesday, District Judge Heather Coyle of the Oklahoma County District Court determined that the state had presented “clear and convincing evidence” that the presumption of Glossip’s guilt “of a capital offense is great.” The order effectively means Glossip will remain in custody at the Oklahoma County Detention Center as the state prepares to prosecute him a third time in connection with the 1997 killing of motel owner Barry Van Treese.

The decision follows a bond hearing held on June 17, during which prosecutors presented testimony from a communications specialist at the jail where Glossip is being held. Glossip’s legal team, which has fought for his release for years, declined to comment on Wednesday’s ruling.

Glossip has spent more than 25 years behind bars, most of them on death row, for allegedly orchestrating a murder-for-hire plot that led to the brutal killing of Van Treese, the owner of the Best Budget Inn in Oklahoma City. The actual killer, then-19-year-old Justin Sneed, was a handyman staying at the motel in exchange for doing maintenance work. He confessed to the murder, striking Van Treese multiple times with a baseball bat, and later testified that Glossip, the motel’s manager, had offered him money and job security in exchange for carrying out the killing.

Sneed’s testimony became the cornerstone of the state’s case against Glossip. In return for his cooperation, Sneed avoided the death penalty and was sentenced to life in prison without parole. No physical evidence ever linked Glossip to the crime, and he has maintained his innocence since his arrest.

Glossip was first convicted and sentenced to death in 1998, but that conviction was overturned on appeal due to ineffective assistance of counsel. He was retried in 2004 and again found guilty. However, the case began to unravel over the years as allegations of prosecutorial misconduct emerged, including the failure to disclose critical evidence that could have undermined Sneed’s credibility.

In a landmark decision issued in February 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated Glossip’s conviction and death sentence, ruling that his constitutional rights had been violated. Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the prosecution had failed to correct false testimony during trial, particularly concerning Sneed’s mental health.

“That correction would have revealed to the jury not just that Sneed was untrustworthy (as amicus points out, the jury already knew he repeatedly lied to the police), but also that Sneed was willing to lie to them under oath,” Sotomayor wrote.

The court cited newly uncovered evidence showing that Sneed had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was prescribed lithium while in jail, facts prosecutors were aware of but failed to disclose. During the trial, Sneed falsely claimed he had never seen a psychiatrist and was given lithium only after requesting cold medicine. Prosecutors did not correct this testimony, a decision the Supreme Court found egregious enough to warrant a new trial.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond announced in June that the state would retry Glossip on a charge of first-degree murder, though he would not seek the death penalty.

“While it was clear to me and to the U.S. Supreme Court that Mr. Glossip did not receive a fair trial, I have never proclaimed his innocence,” Drummond said. “After the high court remanded the matter back to district court, my office thoroughly reviewed the merits of the case against Richard Glossip and concluded that sufficient evidence exists to secure a murder conviction.”

Drummond, a Republican and supporter of capital punishment, has emerged as an unlikely ally in Glossip’s legal fight. He has repeatedly stated that ensuring fairness in the justice system is essential for maintaining public confidence in the death penalty. His stance has drawn support from a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, criminal justice advocates, and religious leaders, many of whom have pointed to Glossip’s case as emblematic of broader flaws in Oklahoma’s capital punishment system.

Glossip’s case has spurred national and international attention, not only due to the number of times his execution was scheduled and halted—nine times in total—but also because of the broader questions it raises about due process, prosecutorial ethics, and the use of the death penalty.

On three separate occasions, Glossip came within hours of being executed, even having his last meal, before stays of execution were granted at the last minute. These repeated close calls have fueled public outcry and placed Oklahoma's execution protocol under increased scrutiny.

Two separate independent investigations commissioned in recent years identified serious concerns with how the case was handled, from flawed police work to alleged misconduct by prosecutors. Critics argue that the state’s reliance on the testimony of a self-interested witness like Sneed—who had a strong incentive to shift blame—created a fragile foundation for a death sentence.

Supporters of Glossip, including several conservative lawmakers and former prosecutors, have argued that even if he were guilty, the prosecution’s misconduct rendered both trials irredeemably unfair. They say the case illustrates why death penalty cases require the highest standards of integrity and transparency.

With bond denied, Glossip will remain incarcerated as preparations for his third trial begin. A date for the new trial has not yet been set, but legal experts suggest it could take months or longer, given the complexity and high-profile nature of the case.

Meanwhile, the family of Barry Van Treese has continued to express confidence in Glossip’s guilt and support for his prosecution. They have maintained that the original convictions were justified and believe a new trial will reaffirm those outcomes.

For Glossip, the road ahead remains uncertain. After more than a quarter-century in prison—much of it under the shadow of execution—he now awaits the opportunity to defend himself in a court that, for the first time, may have access to the full record of evidence.