This case presents the following questions:

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. 19 (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.

Held:

Because the prosecution violated its obligations under Napue, we reverse the judgment below and remand the case for a new trial.

The facts as conceded by the attorney general and supported by the record establish a violation of Napue. A new trial is the remedy for a Napue violation. See Giglio, 405 U. S., at 155. Here, this Court has jurisdiction and a Napue violation occurred. Thus, Glossip is entitled to a new trial.

This case was decided on 2/25/25.

Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson joined, and in which Justice Barrett joined as to Part II.  Justice Barrett filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Alito joined, and in which Justice Barrett joined as to Parts IVA–1, IV–A–2, and IV–A–3. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.