Controversy and Credibility: The Fight for Richard Glossip's Justice

The U.S. Supreme Court is debating whether Richard Glossip's execution should proceed after new evidence questions the credibility of the sole witness against him. The Oklahoma death row inmate's appeal argues that suppressed and withheld evidence violates due process, and the state's attorney general supports his appeal for a new trial.

On Wednesday, U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed concerns over a judicial ruling allowing Richard Glossip's execution, as they deliberated on Oklahoma's death row inmate's appeal of his conviction for a 1997 murder-for-hire.

Central to Glossip's conviction was maintenance worker Justin Sneed's testimony, who confessed to the murder and claimed Glossip paid him $10,000, albeit without facing capital punishment due to a plea deal. Newly surfaced evidence questions Sneed's credibility, revealing prosecutors withheld vital information.

The Oklahoma court upheld Glossip's sentence, but concerns over procedural issues, raised primarily by Justice Kagan, make the ruling contentious. The state's attorney general supports Glossip's appeal amid unfolding complexities. The Supreme Court's decision is awaited by June.

(With inputs from agencies.)