8 ms·

Oklahoma court won't stop Glossip execution

45 points by iudqnolq 3y ago

iudqnolq 3y ago
The titles is a reduced version of the following quote. > Since the State now agrees that the only witness to allege that Mr. Glossip was involved in this crime cannot be believed, it is unconscionable for the court to attempt to force the State to move forward with his execution.
- Blahah 3y ago
  The second part of the title, after the comma, says the opposite of what your quote says.
  - daveguy 3y ago
    The State and the Court are two completely different things. The United States depends on an independent Judicial branch (Court) from the Executive branch (State). And most (all?) of the individual states follow near the same separation of powers.
    - redeux 3y ago
      Do you have a citation for this? The US has three separate, coequal branches. That is indisputable. But, I’ve always considered them all a part of the “state.”
      - iudqnolq 3y ago
        I'm not defending my original title, I can see how it doesn't follow the guidelines. Specifically on your question in the context of a court case "State" clearly refers to the prosecution and not the court. You can see the judge in this case using the word in that manner in the second image in the article.
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    The GP's quote is a lawyer's comment on the situation, so it makes sense in context, but not as a substitute for the HN article title.
    - Blahah 3y ago
      The GP also posted the item to HN. They said the title is a reduced version of the quote. I was pointing out that it's not an accurate one. Edit: the title has since been corrected, so my comments no are no longer relevant
- dang 3y ago
  I've changed the title in keeping with HN's rule: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22level%20playing%20field%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... (Submitted title was "State agrees the only witness cannot be believed, court to force execution")
  - iudqnolq 3y ago
    Apologies. I thought the original title wasn't very useful if the reader doesn't know who Glossip is.
brookst 3y ago
"We're going to execute an innocent man, and it is his own fault because his defense failed to successfully impeach the state's only witness, who we now know was either lying or insane."
- mulmen 3y ago
  Well, we don't know that he is innocent. Just that he didn't receive a fair trial.
  - brookst 3y ago
    Read the article, and others. All indications are actual innocence. Literally no evidence links him to the crime.
    - mulmen 3y ago
      I'm being pedantic. The trial already happened. We don't know what the outcome would have been if the witness' shortcomings were known to the jury.
      - brookst 3y ago
        You're right that we can't know. But I think it's fair to say, in hindsight, that someone was sentenced to death entirely based solely on evidence that no reasonable person would consider beyond a doubt. But, assuming they go ahead and kill him, I'm sure that will be the rationale: we can't be sure he was innocent, and someone has to die.
        mulmen 3y ago
        The governor can decide to not execute him. This just isn't something the courts can remedy.
        brookst 3y ago
biomcgary 3y ago
This is an interesting situation where the judicial system seems truly out of control. Republicans are generally more likely to be in favor of the death penalty, but the attorney general and governor are Republicans that have intervened because they believe that justice is being miscarried. Nevertheless, the appeals court is forcing an execution. Perhaps the panel of judges is using stare decisis to conclude: "you had your chance to present the truth before, but didn't, so too bad". If the entire political spectrum disagrees with the judges, it makes a clear case that the problem is the system. I hope the governor will grant pardon or clemency if the court won't reconsider.
- mulmen 3y ago
  Clemency seems like the correct remedy here. The court only interprets the law as it is written. The system has a failsafe for this situation. Clemency is that failsafe. This is yet another example of why legislatures need to eliminate capital punishment. It's something we have to get right 100% of the time, and that is impossible.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    > The court can't just decide to not enforce the law. The court doesn't enforce anything; that's the executive's job. They can decide the law is unconstitutional, and thus unenforcable.
    - mulmen 3y ago
      You're right. Updated.
  - biomcgary 3y ago
    Under the circumstances, clemency does seem like the best option to me. However, it does not roll back the guilty verdict, which would(?) be possible if resolved within the judicial arm rather than the executive.
    - mulmen 3y ago
macintux 3y ago
“Innocence is no defense.” Such a broken system.
- mulmen 3y ago
  The system seems to be working just fine. The justice system interprets law as enacted by the legislature. This is the balance of power. The governor can still issue a pardon to stop the execution because it is the executive's job to enforce the law. The legislature can change the law to avoid this situation in the future. The solution here isn't to give judges absolute power.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    Dear God, in what world is the current system "fine". 2-10% of the incarcerated population is innocent. My own minor experiences with the courts has uncovered extreme incompetence on even minor issues, and a system that grants judges damn near the absolute power you mention. There's practically no oversight and the system is designed to hide mistakes and misconduct (judicial review boards). "The solution here isn't to give judges absolute power." It's seems all parties are on board - defense, prosecution, etc, so it would not be absolute power.
    - mulmen 3y ago
      There is already a remedy here. The executive can simply decide not to go through with the execution. There's no benefit to allowing judges to selectively interpret the law. The price of that precedent is too high. If you think the justice system already makes poor decisions (I agree) then the solution is certainly not to give judges even more power.
      - giantg2 3y ago
        "There's not benefit to allowing judges to selectively interpret the law." I agree, but they already do. When the entirety of the system has failed and it's down to the executive, that's a problem. We want a system that's fail-safe, not fail-fatal.
GavinMcG 3y ago
This is just the court following the law Oklahoma has enacted, which does not give it the power to act here. It's not forcing anything—it's doing the nothing it's empowered to do. If Oklahoma wants its court to have the power to grant relief, it can change its law. (Or better, just get rid of the death penalty entirely.) The statute in question ([0] – see (D)(8)) says the court may not consider the merits or grant relief unless there are facts or legal rationales that could not have been raised earlier. The court isn't empowered to do something just because two parties agree. Also, the governor can commute the sentence, as he did for Julius Jones. [0] https://casetext.com/statute/oklahoma-statutes/title-22-criminal-procedure/uniform-post-conviction-procedure-act/section-1089-capital-cases-post-conviction-relief-grounds-for-appeal https://casetext.com/statute/oklahoma-statutes/title-22-crim...
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > The court isn't empowered to do something just because two parties agree. It can find executing an innocent person to be unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, and that the statute preventing review of the case on its merits is similarly unconstitutional as a result.
  - GavinMcG 3y ago
    Do you want courts ignoring other precedents from the Supreme Court whenever they feel like it? Or considering arguments that the parties don’t make, just so that they can reach the outcome they desire and view as a moral issue? As bad as things can be in a system that doesn’t always reach a just result, I think it’s almost certainly worse to have courts that feel empowered to do whatever they want.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Yes, I absolutely want the courts to periodically revisit things that are clear miscarriages of justice.
      - mulmen 3y ago
ternaryoperator 3y ago
Since the governor has given multiple reprieves, can he not grant clemency to avoid the miscarriage of justice? Does the governor not have that power in Oklahoma, as he does in most other states?
scarface74 3y ago
Only the government has a “monopoly on violence” and this is the same government that too many people want to give more power to…
gist 3y ago
I don't understand why people seem to think that it's in societies benefit as a whole to have a perfect system. A perfect system would be to spend any amount of money so that every person accused of every crime that could not afford a lawyer had enough money to be able to hire the absolutely best legal help instead of whatever help is typically afforded. Or just the same those who help now (of let's say less skill) have less work or more resources so they can mount a better defense. Unfortunately that is not possible. And yes if you don't have money (for any reason (ie bad luck, wrong family upbringing endless list) you often get the short end of the stick. Noting also that I am almost certain that nobody making a comment has read much about this case other than small parts of it and assuming that in the end the right thing is not happening here. The fact that the attorney general and the Governor think it should not happen doesn't mean it should not happen (as you don't fully know their thinking or their motivations). Bottom line: Money does not grow on trees. There are resources and not everyone will get a fair shake (when skill is involved). I was watching something on TV other night (Dateline or 2020 or like that network) and some family was not happy because a murderer was offered a plea deal. They just did not understand why there would not be a trial they wanted to see the best possible bad outcome for the person who murdered their family member. Sure that is fine but resources unfortunately and money means that prosecutors often (again for the greater good) have to cut deals. So no it's not all about your pain and your situation 'money does not go on trees'. (And the fact that they for other reasons might fight another case doesn't change that ie 'life is not always fair'). Easy for people on the sideline reading to be idealistic about how things should work.
- bananapub 3y ago
  > I don't understand why people seem to think that it's in societies benefit as a whole to have a perfect system. OK? then it seems pretty obvious the corollary is "don't let the imperfections lead to the state murdering people".
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  “It can never be perfect” is a reasonable position to take. “Therefore, we shouldn’t bother to fix the clearly shitty bits” is not.
bananapub 3y ago
it's just surreal that the US, land of the free, home of the brave, by and large tolerates the state just straight up killing people, denying them the most trivial of rights, that of "not being murdered". even aside from the deeply flawed judicial system that leads to so so many people being executed despite not having even committed the claimed crime, it's bizarre they're so far behind almost all of the rest of the western world.
- 121789 3y ago
  I sort of agree with the overall sentiment of this (I oppose the death penalty for many reasons), but this does seem like a mild exaggeration. Less than 20 people get the death penalty per year in the US, and they are isolated in a few states (mostly Texas)
- mulmen 3y ago
  Capital punishment is a legal penalty in 27 of 50 states. But the most populated states do not have capital punishment as a legal penalty. So it is not true that "by and large" the US tolerates this penalty. The trend is clearly toward abolishing the death penalty.
- redeeman 3y ago
  and then one considers pretty much all other countries, the ONLY thing making it different here, is that while the US is happy to kill its citizens, the other countries are even more happy to have their tax slaves that they prefer to imprison for decades and then try see if they can extract more via taxes. Gotta do ANYTHING to keep the tax slaves paying
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    Doesn’t the US have a much higher incarceration rate than most… developed countries, at least?
    - redeeman 3y ago
      yes, and what can we infer here? the US is more willing to keep criminals that might harm others locked up, contrasting to europe where the holy goal is to collect >50% of peoples entire existence, regardless of the risk to others. And also, the US has some slight problems with super corrupt individuals in power like the vice president that hid evidence that would free up wrongly convicted individuals, and hillary clinton that used prison labour to build her vacation homes. the demographics, for many many reasons, are also more criminal in the US
deadbolt 3y ago
Is there anything states which oppose the death penalty can do to encourage states with it to change?
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Get Barack Obama to publicly speak in favor of the death penalty.
  - mansion7 3y ago
    Shouldn't be too hard, he's meted out such a penalty against literal children before.
public_defender 3y ago
This is clearly correct and it exposes a sort of wink/nudge game that judges and lawyers commonly play. Courts will say "we are constrained by the law," and every practitioner knows that they mean, "among the many laws that could apply to this situation, we have selected one that constrains us to make the decision that we think is appropriate." If you go read the briefs, I'll bet you find that each party made the same kind of argument in e.g. the original habeas petition: defense says law A forces conclusion X, prosecutor says law B forces conclusion Y. Normally this is a pretty comfortable role for each party and leads to something that looks like justice. The lawyers think they are making really strong arguments and the court gets to shed accountability, which is a judicial aphrodisiac. The game fell apart here because the attorney general switched sides, ostensibly after contracting an independent review of the conviction, and left the court without any cover for upholding the conviction. So now we have a situation where all parties agree the court should act (and in my recollection of 8th amendment case law, it is actually obligated to act to prevent cruel and unusual punishment), but it will not.

45 points by iudqnolq 3y ago

The titles is a reduced version of the following quote. > Since the State now agrees that the only witness to allege that Mr. Glossip was involved in this crime cannot be believed, it is unconscionable for the court to attempt to force the State to move forward with his execution.

Blahah 3y ago
The second part of the title, after the comma, says the opposite of what your quote says.
- daveguy 3y ago
  The State and the Court are two completely different things. The United States depends on an independent Judicial branch (Court) from the Executive branch (State). And most (all?) of the individual states follow near the same separation of powers.
  - redeux 3y ago
    Do you have a citation for this? The US has three separate, coequal branches. That is indisputable. But, I’ve always considered them all a part of the “state.”
    - iudqnolq 3y ago
      I'm not defending my original title, I can see how it doesn't follow the guidelines. Specifically on your question in the context of a court case "State" clearly refers to the prosecution and not the court. You can see the judge in this case using the word in that manner in the second image in the article.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  The GP's quote is a lawyer's comment on the situation, so it makes sense in context, but not as a substitute for the HN article title.
  - Blahah 3y ago
    The GP also posted the item to HN. They said the title is a reduced version of the quote. I was pointing out that it's not an accurate one. Edit: the title has since been corrected, so my comments no are no longer relevant
dang 3y ago
I've changed the title in keeping with HN's rule: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22level%20playing%20field%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... (Submitted title was "State agrees the only witness cannot be believed, court to force execution")
- iudqnolq 3y ago
  Apologies. I thought the original title wasn't very useful if the reader doesn't know who Glossip is.

brookst 3y ago

"We're going to execute an innocent man, and it is his own fault because his defense failed to successfully impeach the state's only witness, who we now know was either lying or insane."

mulmen 3y ago
Well, we don't know that he is innocent. Just that he didn't receive a fair trial.
- brookst 3y ago
  Read the article, and others. All indications are actual innocence. Literally no evidence links him to the crime.
  - mulmen 3y ago
    I'm being pedantic. The trial already happened. We don't know what the outcome would have been if the witness' shortcomings were known to the jury.
    - brookst 3y ago
      You're right that we can't know. But I think it's fair to say, in hindsight, that someone was sentenced to death entirely based solely on evidence that no reasonable person would consider beyond a doubt. But, assuming they go ahead and kill him, I'm sure that will be the rationale: we can't be sure he was innocent, and someone has to die.
      - mulmen 3y ago
        The governor can decide to not execute him. This just isn't something the courts can remedy.
        brookst 3y ago

biomcgary 3y ago

This is an interesting situation where the judicial system seems truly out of control. Republicans are generally more likely to be in favor of the death penalty, but the attorney general and governor are Republicans that have intervened because they believe that justice is being miscarried. Nevertheless, the appeals court is forcing an execution. Perhaps the panel of judges is using stare decisis to conclude: "you had your chance to present the truth before, but didn't, so too bad". If the entire political spectrum disagrees with the judges, it makes a clear case that the problem is the system. I hope the governor will grant pardon or clemency if the court won't reconsider.

mulmen 3y ago
Clemency seems like the correct remedy here. The court only interprets the law as it is written. The system has a failsafe for this situation. Clemency is that failsafe. This is yet another example of why legislatures need to eliminate capital punishment. It's something we have to get right 100% of the time, and that is impossible.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > The court can't just decide to not enforce the law. The court doesn't enforce anything; that's the executive's job. They can decide the law is unconstitutional, and thus unenforcable.
  - mulmen 3y ago
    You're right. Updated.
- biomcgary 3y ago
  Under the circumstances, clemency does seem like the best option to me. However, it does not roll back the guilty verdict, which would(?) be possible if resolved within the judicial arm rather than the executive.
  - mulmen 3y ago

macintux 3y ago

“Innocence is no defense.” Such a broken system.

mulmen 3y ago
The system seems to be working just fine. The justice system interprets law as enacted by the legislature. This is the balance of power. The governor can still issue a pardon to stop the execution because it is the executive's job to enforce the law. The legislature can change the law to avoid this situation in the future. The solution here isn't to give judges absolute power.
- giantg2 3y ago
  Dear God, in what world is the current system "fine". 2-10% of the incarcerated population is innocent. My own minor experiences with the courts has uncovered extreme incompetence on even minor issues, and a system that grants judges damn near the absolute power you mention. There's practically no oversight and the system is designed to hide mistakes and misconduct (judicial review boards). "The solution here isn't to give judges absolute power." It's seems all parties are on board - defense, prosecution, etc, so it would not be absolute power.
  - mulmen 3y ago
    There is already a remedy here. The executive can simply decide not to go through with the execution. There's no benefit to allowing judges to selectively interpret the law. The price of that precedent is too high. If you think the justice system already makes poor decisions (I agree) then the solution is certainly not to give judges even more power.
    - giantg2 3y ago
      "There's not benefit to allowing judges to selectively interpret the law." I agree, but they already do. When the entirety of the system has failed and it's down to the executive, that's a problem. We want a system that's fail-safe, not fail-fatal.

GavinMcG 3y ago

This is just the court following the law Oklahoma has enacted, which does not give it the power to act here. It's not forcing anything—it's doing the nothing it's empowered to do. If Oklahoma wants its court to have the power to grant relief, it can change its law. (Or better, just get rid of the death penalty entirely.) The statute in question ([0] – see (D)(8)) says the court may not consider the merits or grant relief unless there are facts or legal rationales that could not have been raised earlier. The court isn't empowered to do something just because two parties agree. Also, the governor can commute the sentence, as he did for Julius Jones. [0] https://casetext.com/statute/oklahoma-statutes/title-22-criminal-procedure/uniform-post-conviction-procedure-act/section-1089-capital-cases-post-conviction-relief-grounds-for-appeal https://casetext.com/statute/oklahoma-statutes/title-22-crim...

ceejayoz 3y ago
> The court isn't empowered to do something just because two parties agree. It can find executing an innocent person to be unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, and that the statute preventing review of the case on its merits is similarly unconstitutional as a result.
- GavinMcG 3y ago
  Do you want courts ignoring other precedents from the Supreme Court whenever they feel like it? Or considering arguments that the parties don’t make, just so that they can reach the outcome they desire and view as a moral issue? As bad as things can be in a system that doesn’t always reach a just result, I think it’s almost certainly worse to have courts that feel empowered to do whatever they want.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Yes, I absolutely want the courts to periodically revisit things that are clear miscarriages of justice.
    - mulmen 3y ago

ternaryoperator 3y ago

Since the governor has given multiple reprieves, can he not grant clemency to avoid the miscarriage of justice? Does the governor not have that power in Oklahoma, as he does in most other states?

scarface74 3y ago

Only the government has a “monopoly on violence” and this is the same government that too many people want to give more power to…

gist 3y ago

I don't understand why people seem to think that it's in societies benefit as a whole to have a perfect system. A perfect system would be to spend any amount of money so that every person accused of every crime that could not afford a lawyer had enough money to be able to hire the absolutely best legal help instead of whatever help is typically afforded. Or just the same those who help now (of let's say less skill) have less work or more resources so they can mount a better defense. Unfortunately that is not possible. And yes if you don't have money (for any reason (ie bad luck, wrong family upbringing endless list) you often get the short end of the stick. Noting also that I am almost certain that nobody making a comment has read much about this case other than small parts of it and assuming that in the end the right thing is not happening here. The fact that the attorney general and the Governor think it should not happen doesn't mean it should not happen (as you don't fully know their thinking or their motivations). Bottom line: Money does not grow on trees. There are resources and not everyone will get a fair shake (when skill is involved). I was watching something on TV other night (Dateline or 2020 or like that network) and some family was not happy because a murderer was offered a plea deal. They just did not understand why there would not be a trial they wanted to see the best possible bad outcome for the person who murdered their family member. Sure that is fine but resources unfortunately and money means that prosecutors often (again for the greater good) have to cut deals. So no it's not all about your pain and your situation 'money does not go on trees'. (And the fact that they for other reasons might fight another case doesn't change that ie 'life is not always fair'). Easy for people on the sideline reading to be idealistic about how things should work.

bananapub 3y ago
> I don't understand why people seem to think that it's in societies benefit as a whole to have a perfect system. OK? then it seems pretty obvious the corollary is "don't let the imperfections lead to the state murdering people".
ceejayoz 3y ago
“It can never be perfect” is a reasonable position to take. “Therefore, we shouldn’t bother to fix the clearly shitty bits” is not.

bananapub 3y ago

it's just surreal that the US, land of the free, home of the brave, by and large tolerates the state just straight up killing people, denying them the most trivial of rights, that of "not being murdered". even aside from the deeply flawed judicial system that leads to so so many people being executed despite not having even committed the claimed crime, it's bizarre they're so far behind almost all of the rest of the western world.

121789 3y ago
I sort of agree with the overall sentiment of this (I oppose the death penalty for many reasons), but this does seem like a mild exaggeration. Less than 20 people get the death penalty per year in the US, and they are isolated in a few states (mostly Texas)
mulmen 3y ago
Capital punishment is a legal penalty in 27 of 50 states. But the most populated states do not have capital punishment as a legal penalty. So it is not true that "by and large" the US tolerates this penalty. The trend is clearly toward abolishing the death penalty.
redeeman 3y ago
and then one considers pretty much all other countries, the ONLY thing making it different here, is that while the US is happy to kill its citizens, the other countries are even more happy to have their tax slaves that they prefer to imprison for decades and then try see if they can extract more via taxes. Gotta do ANYTHING to keep the tax slaves paying
- bee_rider 3y ago
  Doesn’t the US have a much higher incarceration rate than most… developed countries, at least?
  - redeeman 3y ago
    yes, and what can we infer here? the US is more willing to keep criminals that might harm others locked up, contrasting to europe where the holy goal is to collect >50% of peoples entire existence, regardless of the risk to others. And also, the US has some slight problems with super corrupt individuals in power like the vice president that hid evidence that would free up wrongly convicted individuals, and hillary clinton that used prison labour to build her vacation homes. the demographics, for many many reasons, are also more criminal in the US

deadbolt 3y ago

Is there anything states which oppose the death penalty can do to encourage states with it to change?

ceejayoz 3y ago
Get Barack Obama to publicly speak in favor of the death penalty.
- mansion7 3y ago
  Shouldn't be too hard, he's meted out such a penalty against literal children before.

public_defender 3y ago

This is clearly correct and it exposes a sort of wink/nudge game that judges and lawyers commonly play. Courts will say "we are constrained by the law," and every practitioner knows that they mean, "among the many laws that could apply to this situation, we have selected one that constrains us to make the decision that we think is appropriate." If you go read the briefs, I'll bet you find that each party made the same kind of argument in e.g. the original habeas petition: defense says law A forces conclusion X, prosecutor says law B forces conclusion Y. Normally this is a pretty comfortable role for each party and leads to something that looks like justice. The lawyers think they are making really strong arguments and the court gets to shed accountability, which is a judicial aphrodisiac. The game fell apart here because the attorney general switched sides, ostensibly after contracting an independent review of the conviction, and left the court without any cover for upholding the conviction. So now we have a situation where all parties agree the court should act (and in my recollection of 8th amendment case law, it is actually obligated to act to prevent cruel and unusual punishment), but it will not.