By Devan Cole, John Fritze and Brynn Gingras, CNN

(CNN) — A fractured Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered a new trial for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, whose appeal drew national attention and support from the state’s conservative attorney general, in light of allegations that the state withheld evidence related to its main witness.

The ruling is a major win for Glossip, whose 1998 conviction for arranging the murder of Barry Van Treese a year earlier has been called into question by him and, critically, the state attorney general after new evidence emerged in recent years.

The ruling represents an extraordinary twist in the legal saga surrounding Glossip, who has been scheduled for execution nine times and has eaten his last meal three times only to have his execution stayed.

“We conclude that the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority.

At the center of the appeal are notes taken by prosecutors involved in Glossip’s trial about Justin Sneed, the man who killed Van Treese with a baseball bat in a hotel. Even though both sides agree Sneed killed Van Treese, Glossip was charged with orchestrating the murder.

Glossip’s conviction rested on Sneed’s testimony, but years afterward, the state disclosed evidence that Sneed was treated for a serious psychiatric condition. The notes indicate prosecutors knew about Sneed’s diagnosis and treatment at the time of Glossip’s trial and, according to Glossip’s supporters, hid that information from his defense.

“Had the prosecution corrected Sneed on the stand, his credibility plainly would have suffered. 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. “Such a revelation would be significant in any case, and was especially so here where Sneed was already ‘nobody’s idea of a strong witness.’”

Five justices sided with Glossip on ordering a new trial. Two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissented. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett would have sent the case back to a lower court for further consideration.

Thomas, writing in a dissent joined by Alito, argued the court’s decision “imagines a constitutional violation where none occurred, and abandons basic principles governing” how federal courts review state court decisions.

During oral arguments in October, several members of the court seemed puzzled by the scant record surrounding the notes, including liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said at one point, “It’s my understanding that there’s never been a court determination of any of these facts,” and Alito, who described the notes as “cryptic.”

The Glossip case is arguably the highest-profile death penalty case to reach the court in years, and it drew two of the most experienced Supreme Court lawyers in the nation. Seth Waxman, a former solicitor general, argued on Glossip’s behalf. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a Republican who supports sparing Glossip, was represented by Paul Clement, also a former solicitor general.

Even though Drummond called for a new trial, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma upheld Glossip’s sentence, ruling the evidence at issue wouldn’t have changed the outcome of the case and that Glossip’s attorneys knew Sneed was taking lithium.

But Glossip’s attorneys argued that had prosecutors disclosed the lithium treatment and corrected lies Sneed told on the witness stand during the trial about his medical history, it would have cast “serious doubt on his credibility” as the state’s star witness.

Glossip “is thrilled beyond words in many ways,” his attorney, Don Knight, told CNN on Tuesday after speaking with his client.

In a separate statement, Knight called the court’s decision “a victory for justice and fairness in our judicial system.”

“Rich Glossip, who has maintained his innocence for 27 years, will now be given the chance to have the fair trial that he has always been denied,” Knight said. “Since 1997, a lot has happened and the prosecution’s case over the years has not gotten better,” he told CNN’s Jake Tapper.

Drummond indicated his office would decide how to proceed in light of the court’s ruling, saying in a statement, “(O)ur work here in Oklahoma is not done.”

“My office will thoroughly review the ruling, visit with the family members, and determine the most appropriate course of action to ensure justice is secured for all involved,” Drummond said. “I am grateful the justices understood the gravity of the situation. I have long maintained that I do not believe Mr. Glossip is innocent, but it is now an undeniable fact that he did not receive a fair trial.”

In a statement, the Van Treese family said they are “confident” a new trial would return the same verdict as those reached in Glossip’s first two trials. Glossip was convicted and sentenced to death in 1998, but that initial outcome was overturned on appeal due to ineffective counsel. He was retried in 2004 and was again convicted and sentenced to die.

“For the last 10,276 days, we’ve been waiting for justice for the murder of Barry Van Treese,” said Barry Van Treese’s son, Derek, on Tuesday.

The family said they want the case to be processed again as a death penalty case, urging prosecutors “not take the easy road of a lesser charge.”

“While it may be difficult to start fresh on a 28-year-old case, I urge the Attorney General and the Oklahoma County District Attorney’s office to demonstrate the same perseverance that our family has shown throughout this process,” Van Treese added.

This story has been updated with additional details.

CNN’s Dakin Andone contributed to this report.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2025 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.