Skip to content

State Habeas Case–Due Process Violations Based on the Suppression of Evidence / Whether There is an Adequate and Independent State-Law Ground for the Judgment

Case Name: Glossip v. State (Okla.Crim.App 2023) 529 P.3d 218, cert. granted 1/22/2024
Case #: 22-7466
Last Updated: January 22, 2024

1. a. Whether the State’s suppression of the key prosecution witness’s admission he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness’s false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959).
b. Whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims. See Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).

2. Whether due process of law requires reversal, where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the State no longer seeks to defend it. See Escobar v. Texas, 143 S. Ct. 557 (2023) (mem.).

In addition to the questions presented, the parties were directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ holding that the Oklahoma Postconviction Procedure Act precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.

Link to Article