Did Glossip and the Oklahoma Attorney General Collusively Conceal Evidence to Win Their U.S. Supreme Court Case?

Paul Cassell has this post with the above title at the Volokh Conspiracy. No prizes for guessing the answer.

During oral argument in October, Glossip and the Oklahoma Attorney General both argued for setting Glossip’s murder conviction aside. Today, the Supreme Court agreed, finding that the OCCA had misinterpreted federal law. The Court held that the Oklahoma courts had misinterpreted Napue v. Illinois, which became an underpinning for the Brady rule and explained that due process forbids prosecutors from “the knowing use of false evidence.” But then today’s opinion continues to make new factual findings the case for the first time on appeal. Very surprisingly, the Court held that remedy was not the standard remand for further proceedings but rather an automatic new trial for Glossip. The Court got it wrong—or, even more clearly, the Court ruled based on distorted record where the parties collusively concealed important information.

See the full post for the details.