• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

A Man Who’s Probably Innocent Will Die Today, And Lawyers Can’t Save Him

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trojita

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Those eight justices have blood on their hands along with the prosecution and governor's office.

Disgraceful.
 
V

Volimar

Member
Freeza Under The Shower said:
No doubt thinking a legit process equals a legitimate use of violence by the state, which is bullshit.
I don't suppose the POTUS could intervene before it's too late?
Click to expand...

He can only pardon or grant clemency for federal crimes. It'd have to be the governor. Don't hold your breath.


Erevador said:
BREAKING

Governor Mary Fallin ordering stay of execution for 37 days.
Click to expand...

EDIT: That only happened because I typed "Don't hold your breath". Not sure where this can lead if he's already exhausted the appeals up to the SCOTUS.
 
B

Burli

Pringo
I don't agree with the death penalty, but even if I did, surely they can only justify it if the evidence against the accused is absolutely concrete?

This is mind-boggling.
 
O

onadesertedisland

Member
The death penalty is as big a failure as the war on drugs. It does not prevent crime, it does not dissuade crime, all it does is kill for vengeance. It also kills in the name of citizens, which have little say in the death.
 
D

Dai101

Banned
onadesertedisland said:
The death penalty is as big a failure as the war on drugs. It does not prevent crime, it does not dissuade crime, all it does is kill for vengeance. It also kills in the name of citizens, which have little say in the death.
Click to expand...

Ef8XHxr.jpg
 
E

Erevador

Member
The president must speak and come out against this barbaric and ongoing miscarriage of justice.

This should be the final straw that breaks the back of the death penalty for good.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
cameron said:
U.S. Supreme Court denies final appeal.
su24Zi3.png

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/093015zr_886a.pdf

Glossip will now face death by lethal injection in Oklahoma based almost entirely on the testimony of the man who killed Van Treese.
Click to expand...

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-richard-glossip-explainer-20150930-htmlstory.html
Click to expand...

That "almost" is important. Here's how the Court of Criminal Appeals described the corroborating evidence when it rejected Glossip's direct appeal in 2007:

OCCA said:
¶37 In proposition one, Glossip claims that the State presented insufficient evidence to convict him of first degree murder. Glossip claims that Justin Sneed’s testimony was not sufficiently corroborated.

. . .

¶40 There is no question that Justin Sneed was an accomplice to the murder of Barry Van Treese, and for Glosssip’s conviction to stand Sneed’s testimony must be corroborated by some other evidence tending to connect Glossip with the commission of the crime.

. . .

¶43 In this case, the State presented a compelling case which showed that Justin Sneed placed himself in a position where he was totally dependent on Glossip. Sneed testified that it was Glossip’s idea that he kill Van Treese. Sneed testified that Glossip promised him large sums of cash if he would kill Barry Van Treese. Sneed testified that, on the evening before the murder, Glossip offered him $10,000 dollars if he would kill Van Treese when he returned from Tulsa. After the murder, Glossip told Sneed that the money he was looking for was under the seat of Van Treese’s car. Sneed took an envelope containing about $4,000.00 from Van Treese’s car. Glossip told Sneed that he would split the money with him, and Sneed complied. Later, the police recovered about $1,200.00 from Glossip and about $1,700.00 from Sneed. The most compelling corroborative evidence, in a light most favorable to the State, is the discovery of the money in Glossip’s possession. There was no evidence that Sneed had independent knowledge of the money under the seat of the car. Glossip’s actions after the murder also shed light on his guilt.

¶44 The State points out four other aspects of Glossip’s involvement, other than the money, which point to his guilt: motive, concealment of the crime, intended flight, and, as alluded to earlier, his control over Sneed.

¶45 Glossip claims that the State’s evidence of motive was unsubstantiated and disputed. However, the State presented sufficient evidence to show that Glossip feared that he was going to be fired as manager, because the motel accounts had shortages during the end of 1996. Cliff Everhart told Mr. Van Treese that he thought that Glossip was “pocketing a couple hundred extra” every week during the quarter of 1996. Billye Hooper shared her concerns about the motel with Van Treese. Van Treese told her that he knew he had to take care of things. It was understood that Van Treese was referring to Glossip’s management.

¶46 The condition of the motel, at the time of Van Treese’s death, was deplorable. Only half of the rooms were habitable. The entire motel was absolutely filthy. Glossip was the person responsible for the day to day operations of the motel. He knew he would be blamed for the motel’s condition.

¶47 The State concedes that motive alone is not sufficient to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony. See Reed v. State, 744 S.W.2d 112, 127 (Tex. Cr. App. 1988). 6 However, evidence of motive may be considered with other evidence to connect the accused with the crime. Id. Glossip’s motive, along with evidence that he actively concealed Van Treese’s body from discovery, as well as his plans to “move on,” connect him with the commission of this crime. Evidence that a defendant attempted to conceal a crime and evidence of attempted flight supports an inference of consciousness of guilt, either of which can corroborate an accomplice’s testimony. See People v. Avila, 133 P.3d 1076, 1127 (Cal. 2006); also see Smith v. State, 263 S.E.2d 910, 911-12 (Ga. 1980) (evidence that a party attempted to conceal his participation in a crime is sufficient to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice).

¶48 The State presented an enormous amount of evidence that Glossip concealed Van Treese’s body from investigators all day long and he lied about the broken window. He admitted knowing that Sneed killed Van Treese in room 102. He knew about the broken glass. However, he never told anyone that he thought Sneed was involved in the murder, until after he was taken into custody that night, after Van Treese’s body was found. Glossip intentionally lied by telling people that Van Treese had left early that morning to get supplies. In fact, Van Treese was killed hours before Glossip claimed to have seen Van Treese that morning. Glossip’s stories about when he last saw Van Treese were inconsistent. He first said that he last saw him at 7:00 a.m.; later he said he saw him at 4:30 a.m. Finally, he said he last saw him at 8:00 p.m. the night before Van Treese’s death, and he denied making other statements regarding the time he last saw Van Treese.

¶49 Glossip also intentionally steered everyone away from room 102. He told Billye Hooper that Van Treese had left to get materials, and that Van Treese stayed in room 108 the night before. He told Jackie Williams, a housekeeper at the motel, not to clean any downstairs rooms (which included room 102). He said that he and Sneed would clean the downstairs rooms. He told a number of people that two drunken cowboys broke the window, and he tried to implicate a person who was observed at the nearby Sinclair station as one of the cowboys.

¶50 He told Everhart that he would search the rooms for Van Treese, and then he told Sneed to search the rooms for Van Treese. No other person searched the rooms until seventeen hours after the murder, when Van Treese’s body was discovered.

¶51 The next day, Glossip began selling all of his belongings, before he admitted that he actively concealed Van Treese’s body. He told Everhart that “he was going to be moving on.” He failed to show up for an appointment with investigators, so the police had to take him into custody for a second interview where he admitted that he actively concealed Van Treese’s body. He said he lied about Sneed telling him about killing Van Treese, not to protect Sneed, but because he felt like he “was involved in it.”
Click to expand...

To summarize, Glossip (1) had a motive for killing Van Treese, because he expected he might be fired for mismanaging the motel and stealing money; (2) concealed the body of Van Treese by (i) lying about seeing Van Treese after he was killed, (ii) lying about the cause of the broken window in Van Treese's room, (iii) lying about which room Van Treese had stayed in the night before, (iv) taking responsibility for searching the rooms for Van Treese (and somehow missing the dead body in 102), and (v) taking responsibility for cleaning the rooms on the first floor (so the housekeeper wouldn't find the body in 102); (3) began selling his belongings after the murder but before he was arrested; (4) told others that he was "going to be moving on" after the murder but before he was arrested; and (5) was found with part of the money taken from Van Treese's car in his possession.

Regarding the Supreme Court, I'm a bit surprised that only Breyer would have granted the application.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Metaphoreus said:
That "almost" is important. Here's how the Court of Criminal Appeals described the corroborating evidence when it rejected Glossip's direct appeal in 2007:



To summarize, Glossip (1) had a motive for killing Van Treese, because he expected he might be fired for mismanaging the motel and stealing money; (2) concealed the body of Van Treese by (i) lying about seeing Van Treese after he was killed, (ii) lying about the cause of the broken window in Van Treese's room, (iii) lying about which room Van Treese had stayed in the night before, (iv) taking responsibility for searching the rooms for Van Treese (and somehow missing the dead body in 102), and (v) taking responsibility for cleaning the rooms on the first floor (so the housekeeper wouldn't find the body in 102); (3) began selling his belongings after the murder but before he was arrested; (4) told others that he was "going to be moving on" after the murder but before he was arrested; and (5) was found with part of the money taken from Van Treese's car in his possession.

Regarding the Supreme Court, I'm a bit surprised that only Breyer would have granted the application.
Click to expand...

I immediately thought. 5-4 split. Not 8-1.
 
C

Cipherr

Member
Erevador said:
Can we all agree from this point on to ignore Metaphoreus's insane posts in order to not derail the discussion?
Click to expand...

People like him would legit lose their shit and do a 180 on their beliefs of that policy if their own daughter was caught up in that sort of bullshit. And its annoying because we all knows it's true, but he would NEVER admit it.
 
E

Erevador

Member
DarthWoo said:
Sounds like it's only related to making sure the drug combinations aren't screwed up and not that she gives a shit about his actual innocence.
Click to expand...
That's obviously just an excuse. She is not prepared to be held responsible for this death in the current circumstance.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Erevador said:
Can we all agree from this point on to ignore Metaphoreus's insane posts in order to not derail the discussion?
Click to expand...

How does one derail a discussion by discussing the topic of discussion? Or are you under the mistaken impression that disagreement is, itself, a derailment?
 
B

brainchild

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
That "almost" is important. Here's how the Court of Criminal Appeals described the corroborating evidence when it rejected Glossip's direct appeal in 2007:



To summarize, Glossip (1) had a motive for killing Van Treese, because he expected he might be fired for mismanaging the motel and stealing money; (2) concealed the body of Van Treese by (i) lying about seeing Van Treese after he was killed, (ii) lying about the cause of the broken window in Van Treese's room, (iii) lying about which room Van Treese had stayed in the night before, (iv) taking responsibility for searching the rooms for Van Treese (and somehow missing the dead body in 102), and (v) taking responsibility for cleaning the rooms on the first floor (so the housekeeper wouldn't find the body in 102); (3) began selling his belongings after the murder but before he was arrested; (4) told others that he was "going to be moving on" after the murder but before he was arrested; and (5) was found with part of the money taken from Van Treese's car in his possession.

Regarding the Supreme Court, I'm a bit surprised that only Breyer would have granted the application.
Click to expand...

Important enough to know that his responsibility in all of this shouldn't lead to the death penalty.

Erevador said:
Can we all agree from this point on to ignore Metaphoreus's insane posts in order to not derail the discussion?
Click to expand...

This is a non-sequitur if I ever saw one. WAT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The man who owes Nintendo $14m: Gary Bowser and gaming’s most infamous piracy case
2
85
5K
SHA replied
Joe Exotic resentenced to 21 years in prison for murder for hire plot against Carole Baskin
2
50
4K
Winter John replied
Bill Cosby Conviction Overturned
News 2 3 4
160
14K
DeepEnigma replied
The story about how a Missouri man was wrongfully convicted of killing his wife is such an infuriating miscariage of justice
35
5K
SpoopySpeedster replied
Missouri proceeding w/ execution despite new DNA results clearing him (up: stayed)
2 3 4 5 6
260
47K
johnny956 replied
Top Bottom