ACLU Comment on Supreme Court Decision in Glossip v. Gross

KANSAS CITY, Kan. — After hearing a historic challenge to the constitutionality of the death penalty and the practice of death qualification, a Kansas trial court has issued a written order finding extensive and irredeemable defects in the application of the death penalty over the last 30 years. The court declined to rule on the ultimate questions regarding the constitutionality of the state’s death penalty and the practice of death qualification because the individuals who brought the challenge no longer faced the death penalty. In its opinion the court highlighted that: The death penalty is not a deterrent. “The scientific community has found no reliable evidence of the death penalty being a deterrent to homicides.” The death penalty is costly. “More than $4 million has been spent with the results being no death penalty sentences and zero executions.” Racial bias infects capital prosecutions. “The factors which distinguish death sentence cases from non-death sentence cases are the race and gender of the victim, and the race and gender of the defendant.” Courts have been unable to ensure capital juries are free of racial bias. “[The legal framework for limiting discrimination in jury selection] is so flawed that it does not protect racial biases in jury selection and must be reformed, a fact known to Kansans for years.” “In each of the four cases where we raised this challenge in Kansas, none of our clients ultimately faced capital trials where the death penalty remained on the table,” said Cassandra Stubbs, director of the ACLU’s Capital Punishment Project. “That is no coincidence. The evidentiary hearings have consistently exposed uncomfortable truths to state prosecutors, the courts, and the public about the deep flaws and injustices embedded in the death penalty system. While we are relieved that none of our clients have received death sentences, the systemic issues that these cases have brought to light persist. We remain committed to challenging the death penalty on behalf of people facing capital charges in Kansas, with the hope that state legislators will end the death penalty and make future legal challenges unnecessary.” The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Kansas, Democracy Forward, the Kansas Death Penalty Defense Unit, Hogan Lovells, and Ali & Lockwood represented two individuals, Hugo Villaneuva-Morales and Antoine Fielder, in their constitutional pre-trial challenges to the death penalty in Wyandotte County. Following extensive pre-trial litigation, including the weeklong evidentiary hearing challenging the death penalty, the cases were resolved without the death penalty. The state and Mr. Fielder entered into a plea agreement and Mr. Fielder was sentenced to life without parole. The prosecution tried Mr. Villanueva-Morales for capital murder but ultimately withdrew its request for the death penalty. Because the two men no longer faced the prospect of a capital sentence, the court declined to address the broader constitutional claims.

Mikal Mahdi’s life was marked by abuse. Today, as he awaits execution, the courts have the responsibility to acknowledge the systemic failures that shaped his path.

This case gets at the very heart of our right to a jury trial. Traditionally and historically, the right to a jury trial has promised that a person could not be punished unless every single person in a group of one’s peers agreed, by jury vote, that that was the just outcome. However, Florida feels differently. When it comes to the death penalty, Florida is one of only two states that has decided that the “right to a trial by jury” does not guarantee that a person will be sentenced to death by a unanimous jury. Instead, in Florida, a person can be sentenced to die even if four people on their jury think they should live. The state requires just eight of twelve jury votes for a death sentence, which not only disproportionately affects people of color, but the very ideals at the heart of the rights of citizenship.

WASHINGTON – In a major win for due process, the U.S. Supreme Court today granted Richard Glossip, a man on Oklahoma’s death row, a new trial and a chance to be fully exonerated. Richard Glossip was convicted in 1998 and sentenced to death for allegedly asking Justin Sneed – the prosecution’s star witness – to murder another man. Sneed's testimony was the only direct evidence connecting Glossip to the murder, and Glossip maintained his innocence throughout. His conviction was overturned by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals but, despite inconsistent testimony from Sneed at retrial, Glossip was convicted again. It was only then, after two trials and two appeals, that an independent investigation revealed that the prosecution had deliberately destroyed key evidence and additional potentially exculpatory and impeachment evidence was made available to the defense. Those files revealed that Sneed lied at trial about facts that cast his entire testimony into doubt. Despite these new revelations about prosecutorial misconduct, Glossip unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief, until the Supreme Court last year stayed his execution and agreed to hear the case. “Richard Glossip has been fighting for two decades to prove his innocence; today the Supreme Court assured that he will finally have his day in court,” said Brian Stull, deputy director of the ACLU’s Capital Punishment Project. “Today’s decision reveals the error-prone and arbitrary nature of the death penalty, and the devastating impact of false testimony and wrongfully withheld evidence. Even after it became clear that prosecutors had buried exculpatory evidence, the machinery of the death penalty continued to grind on for years. This case shows that we cannot trust the state convict and imprison only the innocent, let alone to ensure that innocent people are never strapped to the execution table. It is long past time to end the death penalty in our country.” The American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that prosecutors violated Glossip’s due process rights by failing to disclose exculpatory evidence and using Sneed’s false testimony to convict Glossip. The brief further highlights Oklahoma’s sordid history of violating these rights. “Time after time, Oklahoma prosecutors have violated these precedents, despite repeated notice that their actions were not in compliance with the U.S. Constitution,” the brief reads. This glaring pattern of errors almost led to the execution of an innocent person. It teaches that the government cannot be trusted to reliably, fairly, and equitably determine who should live and who should die. Glossip v. Oklahoma is part of the ACLU's Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.