The question
Whether the Court had jurisdiction to review the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment and whether the prosecution's failure to correct Justin Sneed's false trial testimony violated Glossip's due process rights under Napue.
Glossip v. Oklahoma
What the Court decided
The Court reversed and remanded in favor of Richard Glossip. It held it had jurisdiction because the OCCA's application of a state procedural bar depended on an antecedent ruling of federal law, so the decision did not rest on an independent and adequate state ground. On the merits, the Court held the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation under Napue by knowingly failing to correct Sneed's false testimony that he had not been prescribed lithium or seen a psychiatrist, and that this false testimony warranted a new trial.
How the justices split
5-3The Court's opinion
Sotomayor, joined by Roberts, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Jackson, Barrett
The Court held it had jurisdiction because the OCCA made its application of the state post-conviction procedural bar contingent on rejecting the attorney general's confession of a Napue error, a determination that rested on federal law and so was not an independent and adequate state ground. On the merits, the Court held that under Napue a conviction obtained through the knowing use of false testimony violates due process, that Sneed's testimony denying his lithium prescription and psychiatric treatment was false, that the prosecution knew it was false and failed to correct it, and that this warranted a new trial. Barrett joined only Part II.
Concurring in part and in the judgment
Barrett, writing alone
Barrett concurred in part and dissented in part, joining the Court's jurisdictional analysis in Part II and joining Parts IV-A-1, IV-A-2, and IV-A-3 of Thomas's dissent while not joining the balance of the Court's opinion.
Dissenting
Thomas, joined by Alito, Barrett
Thomas dissented, joined in full by Alito and joined by Barrett as to Parts IV-A-1, IV-A-2, and IV-A-3, disagreeing with the Court's exercise of jurisdiction and its conclusion that a Napue violation was established requiring a new trial.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held it had jurisdiction to review the OCCA's judgment because the OCCA's application of the state procedural bar depended on its antecedent rejection of a confession of federal constitutional error.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court held the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony under Napue.
Source: syllabus, Held
Sneed's trial testimony denying his lithium prescription was false, and the prosecution knew it and failed to correct it.
Source: syllabus, Held
Sneed's testimony was the only direct evidence connecting Glossip to the murder.
Source: syllabus, Held
Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson, with Barrett joining as to Part II; Thomas dissented joined by Alito; Gorsuch took no part.
Source: syllabus, lineup