10 ms·

AMA with one of the pro bono defense attorneys for Richard Glossip

42 points by jl 11y ago

paul 11y ago
A bit of background on the Glossip case (from PG): http://pg.posthaven.com/the-case-of-richard-glossip http://pg.posthaven.com/the-case-of-richard-glossip If we can't stop the state from killing a person known to most likely be innocent, it makes me wonder what hope we have with genuinely complex issues such as gun violence.
- sjg007 11y ago
  Heavily tax guns and bullets.
  - paul 11y ago
    The point being that if we lack the political ability to simply not kill an innocent person, then more complex things such as updated gun regulations are likely impossible.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    Bullets only will do. A gun without a bullet is a ineffective baton.
- nicklaf 11y ago
  PG writes that Glossip's best hope might be for the Supreme Court (I presume he is referring to the U.S. Supreme Court) to intervene. My first thought in response to that was, "What about a presidential pardon?" Then I realized this was a state case, and so the power of clemency lies with governor Mary Fallin, who has rejected calls for clemency. Shame on her!
  - nicklaf 11y ago
    I apologize, but I was incorrect. The governor has stated that she does NOT have the authority to commute Glossip's death sentence.
- rayiner 11y ago
  > A 2014 study by the National Academy of Sciences found that at least 4% of people sentenced to death are innocent. That means that 96% are guilty. That's beyond a reasonable doubt and probably not far from the best accuracy you can expect from an inherently fuzzy system. The system is not the problem. The problem is people who are willing to still have the death penalty in a system where beyond a reasonable doubt means 1 in 20 people who are killed are innocent. That's not the system's fault. That's the public's value judgment.
  - pessimizer 11y ago
    I agree with your point, but if at least 4% of people sentenced to death are innocent, that doesn't mean that 96% are guilty, that means that at most 96% are guilty.
  - dang 11y ago
    The public's value judgments can change quite rapidly, and may well about this, once this information becomes widely distributed. The visceral revulsion evoked by executing someone innocent must be nearly universal, despite disagreement about the death penalty itself.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      People rationalize. Emily Bazelon writes about an Alabama case in which a man who plead guilty to a rape has been effectively exonerated by DNA evidence denied to him prior to taking his plea deal (in that state, prosecutors aren't required to furnish evidence prior to a plea agreement, but rather only before a trial). Despite eyewitness testimony from the victim (now deceased) who adamantly insists there was only a single assailant, the prosecutor insists that DNA or no DNA, the accused must have been present for the crime; the accused remains in prison. So I guess I'm suggesting that words "innocent" or "guilty" suggest a clarity of judgement that most people don't actually have in practice. So the condemned didn't actually kill the victim. He must have been involved somehow!
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    One should factor out effectively uncontested cases, like the Tsarnaev trial, which wasn't about whether they did it. What do you think the numbers will look like then?
- Natsu 11y ago
  I read a summary from one of the rulings in the last story, which you can find here: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6244.pdf http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6244.pdf I do not think they should go for the death penalty on this case because it's too indirect and because parts of Sneed's story are suspect, not to mention because the death penalty can't be undone if there's a mistake. However, I'm also convinced this guy is actually guilty based on the evidence currently known to me (and I will modify it as more evidence becomes available to me, as any rational person should). Both Glossip and someone sharing the bed with him (the docs aren't clear on there relationship, but I'm going to guess 'girlfriend/wife') lied to investigators to give Glossip an alibi and he appears to have split a large sum of money with the guy who actually held the murder weapon (Sneed). Moreover, the alibi is given as it may be evidence knowing the perpetrator ahead of time. He also told lies to keep people away from the body all day and they only found the body after realizing that he'd been telling lots of lies to people. I would like them to investigate further and gather physical proof--for example, it sounds like there should be hairs/fingerprints at the murder scene if he helped dispose of the body but it's not clear how hard anyone investigated this, because they didn't review the evidence collection practiced. So I can agree with the "we shouldn't execute this guy" part of it, but I am not convinced of his innocence and I'm reminded of the Reiser case where there were a lot of techies who were surprised when his guilt was proven when he led investigators to his wife's body. Back then, almost everyone just ignored the fact that they spent all their time lying to investigators even before they should have known they were suspected. Could learn a thing or two from watching Keyser Soze hustle and learn to spot all the lies that were hiding in plain sight. I mean, I almost never see people reasoning about things like "an innocent person would have no way of knowing that" in particular, how one would know to lie about things before they should have known the hotel manager was dead. We have multiple witnesses saying that Glossip lied about the manager's whereabouts. I don't trust Sneed at all, but Glossip's involvement in the murder seems solid.
- tsotha 11y ago
  >If we can't stop the state from killing a person known to most likely be innocent... It's difficult to believe this is true when he was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in two different trials.
  - splat 11y ago
    What the legal profession believes to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" and what the members of a particular jury consider "beyond a reasonable doubt" are two very different things. Judge Alex Kozinski wrote very well on the matter in a great article [1]: "Juries are routinely instructed that the defendant is presumed innocent and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but we don’t really know whether either of these instructions has an effect on the average juror. Do jurors understand the concept of a presumption? If so, do they understand how a presumption is supposed to operate? Do they assume that the presumption remains in place until it is overcome by persuasive evidence or do they believe it disappears as soon as any actual evidence is presented? We don’t really know. Nor do we know whether juries really draw a distinction between proof by a preponderance, proof by clear and convincing evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. These levels of proof, which lawyers and judges assume to be hermetically sealed categories, may mean nothing at all in the jury room. My own experience as a juror certainly did nothing to convince me that my fellow jurors understood and appreciated the difference. The issue, rather, seemed to be quite simply: Am I convinced that the defendant is guilty?" [1] http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/2015/06/Kozinski_Preface.pdf http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/2015/06/Kozinski_Prefa...
    - Tomte 11y ago
      Isn't that so obvious that it's reasonable to say it's by design? I think this specific flavor of jury trials, gun ownership and the second amendment, this insanely broad free speech thing, they all are consequences of the same fact: America optimizes for resilience against a hypothetical future totalitarian regime and happily sacrifices acceptable outcomes in the present. I'm not convinced it achieves even the former, but that's obviously highly controversial.
    - mapt 11y ago
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  Here's another background article: https://www.readfrontier.com/investigation/two-truths-and-a-lie-what-records-interviews-reveal-about-richard-glossips-murder-conviction/ https://www.readfrontier.com/investigation/two-truths-and-a-... Note that despite all this "innocence" talk, Richard admits to lying to police, instructing cleaning crews to avoid the room, robbing his employer's car (after the murder?), and, it seems, pretending to help with the search even though he knew the body would not be found there. From what I've made out of the timeline, he only reversed his statements after it was clear how things were going down. So it would appear that he was trying to cover up the murder. While one person's testimony shouldn't be enough to add the "for hire" enhancement, why are people saying he's innocent? Certainly his actions that he admits to would be enough to pin an accessory or accomplice charge of murder.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

42 points by jl 11y ago

paul 11y ago

A bit of background on the Glossip case (from PG): http://pg.posthaven.com/the-case-of-richard-glossip http://pg.posthaven.com/the-case-of-richard-glossip If we can't stop the state from killing a person known to most likely be innocent, it makes me wonder what hope we have with genuinely complex issues such as gun violence.

sjg007 11y ago
Heavily tax guns and bullets.
- paul 11y ago
  The point being that if we lack the political ability to simply not kill an innocent person, then more complex things such as updated gun regulations are likely impossible.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Bullets only will do. A gun without a bullet is a ineffective baton.
nicklaf 11y ago
PG writes that Glossip's best hope might be for the Supreme Court (I presume he is referring to the U.S. Supreme Court) to intervene. My first thought in response to that was, "What about a presidential pardon?" Then I realized this was a state case, and so the power of clemency lies with governor Mary Fallin, who has rejected calls for clemency. Shame on her!
- nicklaf 11y ago
  I apologize, but I was incorrect. The governor has stated that she does NOT have the authority to commute Glossip's death sentence.
rayiner 11y ago
> A 2014 study by the National Academy of Sciences found that at least 4% of people sentenced to death are innocent. That means that 96% are guilty. That's beyond a reasonable doubt and probably not far from the best accuracy you can expect from an inherently fuzzy system. The system is not the problem. The problem is people who are willing to still have the death penalty in a system where beyond a reasonable doubt means 1 in 20 people who are killed are innocent. That's not the system's fault. That's the public's value judgment.
- pessimizer 11y ago
  I agree with your point, but if at least 4% of people sentenced to death are innocent, that doesn't mean that 96% are guilty, that means that at most 96% are guilty.
- dang 11y ago
  The public's value judgments can change quite rapidly, and may well about this, once this information becomes widely distributed. The visceral revulsion evoked by executing someone innocent must be nearly universal, despite disagreement about the death penalty itself.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    People rationalize. Emily Bazelon writes about an Alabama case in which a man who plead guilty to a rape has been effectively exonerated by DNA evidence denied to him prior to taking his plea deal (in that state, prosecutors aren't required to furnish evidence prior to a plea agreement, but rather only before a trial). Despite eyewitness testimony from the victim (now deceased) who adamantly insists there was only a single assailant, the prosecutor insists that DNA or no DNA, the accused must have been present for the crime; the accused remains in prison. So I guess I'm suggesting that words "innocent" or "guilty" suggest a clarity of judgement that most people don't actually have in practice. So the condemned didn't actually kill the victim. He must have been involved somehow!
- Zigurd 11y ago
  One should factor out effectively uncontested cases, like the Tsarnaev trial, which wasn't about whether they did it. What do you think the numbers will look like then?
Natsu 11y ago
I read a summary from one of the rulings in the last story, which you can find here: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6244.pdf http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6244.pdf I do not think they should go for the death penalty on this case because it's too indirect and because parts of Sneed's story are suspect, not to mention because the death penalty can't be undone if there's a mistake. However, I'm also convinced this guy is actually guilty based on the evidence currently known to me (and I will modify it as more evidence becomes available to me, as any rational person should). Both Glossip and someone sharing the bed with him (the docs aren't clear on there relationship, but I'm going to guess 'girlfriend/wife') lied to investigators to give Glossip an alibi and he appears to have split a large sum of money with the guy who actually held the murder weapon (Sneed). Moreover, the alibi is given as it may be evidence knowing the perpetrator ahead of time. He also told lies to keep people away from the body all day and they only found the body after realizing that he'd been telling lots of lies to people. I would like them to investigate further and gather physical proof--for example, it sounds like there should be hairs/fingerprints at the murder scene if he helped dispose of the body but it's not clear how hard anyone investigated this, because they didn't review the evidence collection practiced. So I can agree with the "we shouldn't execute this guy" part of it, but I am not convinced of his innocence and I'm reminded of the Reiser case where there were a lot of techies who were surprised when his guilt was proven when he led investigators to his wife's body. Back then, almost everyone just ignored the fact that they spent all their time lying to investigators even before they should have known they were suspected. Could learn a thing or two from watching Keyser Soze hustle and learn to spot all the lies that were hiding in plain sight. I mean, I almost never see people reasoning about things like "an innocent person would have no way of knowing that" in particular, how one would know to lie about things before they should have known the hotel manager was dead. We have multiple witnesses saying that Glossip lied about the manager's whereabouts. I don't trust Sneed at all, but Glossip's involvement in the murder seems solid.
tsotha 11y ago
>If we can't stop the state from killing a person known to most likely be innocent... It's difficult to believe this is true when he was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in two different trials.
- splat 11y ago
  What the legal profession believes to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" and what the members of a particular jury consider "beyond a reasonable doubt" are two very different things. Judge Alex Kozinski wrote very well on the matter in a great article [1]: "Juries are routinely instructed that the defendant is presumed innocent and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but we don’t really know whether either of these instructions has an effect on the average juror. Do jurors understand the concept of a presumption? If so, do they understand how a presumption is supposed to operate? Do they assume that the presumption remains in place until it is overcome by persuasive evidence or do they believe it disappears as soon as any actual evidence is presented? We don’t really know. Nor do we know whether juries really draw a distinction between proof by a preponderance, proof by clear and convincing evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. These levels of proof, which lawyers and judges assume to be hermetically sealed categories, may mean nothing at all in the jury room. My own experience as a juror certainly did nothing to convince me that my fellow jurors understood and appreciated the difference. The issue, rather, seemed to be quite simply: Am I convinced that the defendant is guilty?" [1] http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/2015/06/Kozinski_Preface.pdf http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/2015/06/Kozinski_Prefa...
  - Tomte 11y ago
    Isn't that so obvious that it's reasonable to say it's by design? I think this specific flavor of jury trials, gun ownership and the second amendment, this insanely broad free speech thing, they all are consequences of the same fact: America optimizes for resilience against a hypothetical future totalitarian regime and happily sacrifices acceptable outcomes in the present. I'm not convinced it achieves even the former, but that's obviously highly controversial.
  - mapt 11y ago
MichaelGG 11y ago
Here's another background article: https://www.readfrontier.com/investigation/two-truths-and-a-lie-what-records-interviews-reveal-about-richard-glossips-murder-conviction/ https://www.readfrontier.com/investigation/two-truths-and-a-... Note that despite all this "innocence" talk, Richard admits to lying to police, instructing cleaning crews to avoid the room, robbing his employer's car (after the murder?), and, it seems, pretending to help with the search even though he knew the body would not be found there. From what I've made out of the timeline, he only reversed his statements after it was clear how things were going down. So it would appear that he was trying to cover up the murder. While one person's testimony shouldn't be enough to add the "for hire" enhancement, why are people saying he's innocent? Certainly his actions that he admits to would be enough to pin an accessory or accomplice charge of murder.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]