A thick steel door bars the only exit of a tiny, cramped cell, around the size of a bathroom. A metal or concrete slab covered with a thin mattress is positioned in a corner, a toilet and sink less than two feet away. An insulated cart carries food three times a day into this dismal space. Human interaction is limited, visitors are rare, and physical contact is not allowed.
Death row inmates often spend up to 22 hours per day in solitary confinement, the psychological effects of which have been found similar to the mental distress of physical torture. Those incarcerated and awaiting execution are constantly reminded of the weight of their impending doom. As the average time an inmate spends on death row exceeds 15 years, many suffer under these conditions for decades.
Convicted in Oklahoma in 1997 for orchestrating the murder of motel owner and boss, Barry Van Treese, Richard Glossip has had nine execution dates set and postponed, eaten his last meal three times, and spend the last twenty-eight years on death row in the maximum-security Oklahoma State Penitentiary.
Glossip’s case, prosecuted by Connie Smothermon, now adjunct professor at the University of Oklahoma, has garnered widespread attention due to recent allegations of Smothermon’s prosecutorial misconduct and falsification of evidence that led to an unethical conviction.
Justin Sneed, a former colleague of Glossip’s and the lynchpin witness of his capital punishment sentence, claimed Glossip offered him thousands of dollars for the murder of Van Treese. However, Sneed’s reliability has come into question following the discovery that he lied under oath about certain medical conditions; conditions that Smothermon and her fellow prosecutors were aware of yet failed to correct on the stand.
One of the lead prosecutors in Glossip’s case, Smothermon’s pretrial notes confirm that the prosecutors knew of Sneed’s bipolar diagnosis and treatment as well as his psychiatrist visits and prescriptions, all of which would have seriously damaged the credibility of his testimony had the information been public. In the Supreme Court Petitioner Case Document, the importance of Sneed’s testimony to the prosecutors case was outlined, highlighting the weakness of motive the case attributed to Glossip.
Throughout his initial trial, conviction, and subsequent appeals, Glossip has maintained his innocence of involvement in any premeditated murder plot.
In a state notorious for its pursuit of the death penalty, cases like Glossip’s may not always capture public attention. However, the U.S Supreme Court’s recent decision to grant Glossip a retrial upon this burgeoning evidence of prosecutorial misconduct has highlighted the potentially fatal consequences and possibility of mistakes in capital punishment cases.
In light of her involvement in the case, Smothermon’s current role as adjunct professor at both the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma City University’s law programs has been criticized. National media corporations as well as independent law firms, students, and alumni have called for her removal following the Supreme Court’s decision, in which Smothermon was mentioned by name over 100 times.
A petition circulated by OU Students has garnered widespread attention. OU Law student Travis Handler, who initially posted the petition, said in an interview with the OU Daily that his main concern of the issue is accountability.
Alumni from the OU College of Law have also made their stance apparent, 54 submitted a letter to the college Dean as well as University President Joesph Harroz Jr. calling for Smothermon’s immediate removal.
“It is the repeated denial of wrongdoing from the state, [Connie] Smothermon and those involved that has garnered all the attention surrounding this case,” said attorney and OU law alum Robert Gifford, one of the signers of the letter sent to university administration, “We are all fallible, but trying to cover up mistakes instead of taking responsibility and trying to fix the situation is where trouble starts.”
The University and OU College of Law Dean Anna E. Carpenter have both issued a statement that while the administration is aware of the Supreme Court decision, they are unwilling to comment on personnel. Smotherman continues to teach courses in criminal procedure, adjudication and client counseling at OU College of Law and OCU School of Law. Smothermon did not respond to a request for comment.
An OU law student currently in Smotherman’s class, who wished to remain anonymous, said that Smotherman’s involvement in the case cast a bad light on the university’s legal education.
“When your professor is named in multiple national news outlets and cited in Supreme Court decisions for misconduct, all while teaching a legal ethics-based class, it gives both the students and the university a bad rap,” said the student, “How can the university hope to foster a culture of professionalism if they are unwilling to enforce consequences when the standard is breached?”
When asked about his opinions on Connie Smothermon’s misconduct allegations, Glossip’s attorney Don Knight said he had a lot of opinions but preferred not to elaborate.
“It is not about winning, it is about making sure justice is done,” said Knight. “As a defense lawyer, or course I want to win. I’m sure prosecutors feel the same, but that must fall by the wayside. What is more important is doing your very best in an honest manner.”
Beyond the ethical concerns of students and alumni on the implications of allowing Connie Smotherman to continue to teach at the university, the Supreme Court decision and cited evidence of the case has brought issues within the criminal justice system of Oklahoma into the forefront of national thought.
Oklahoma has faced accusations of mishandling capital punishment cases in the past, Glossip’s case is one of two Oklahoma capital punishment cases recently reviewed by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ordered a review of the case of Brenda Andrews, the only woman on death row in Oklahoma, due to her claim that prosecutor’s sex-shamed her, thus inhibiting her chance of a fair trial.
Some argue that two Oklahoma death row cases contested by the U.S Supreme Court in less than six months underlines a prevalent imbalance in the justice system.
“It is a systemic issue, and there is more than one person to blame,” said Gifford, “Connie Smotherman was operating under an unhealthy, competitive culture.”
Gifford mentioned the emphasis on the death penalty promoted by former Oklahoma County District Attorney ‘Cowboy’ Bob Macy created pressures to convict, with any means justifying this end.
“There is a saying among legal practitioners, ‘death is different’. In capital punishment cases without proper, thorough systems in place, there is imminent danger of fatal mistakes.”
What the SCOTUS decision means for the death penalty in Oklahoma and across the nation remains unclear. Gifford believes capital punishment is in its final days.
The fates of Richard Glossip and Connie Smotherman alike are yet to be decided.
From the university to the federal setting, legal professionals, students, and activists nationwide continue to contest the disparities and perceived lack of transparency in court proceedings.
Gifford claims that within our modern, ever-evolving society and culture, it is only a matter of time before the death penalty becomes a thing of the past.
“The time is ripe for change, and it starts in education, how we are equipping young lawyers to handle cases like these in an ethical, just manner.”
Human Sources:
Lale Edil: Phone; (720) 668-7314 Email; lale-edil@ou.edu
Robert Gifford: Phone; (405) 778-4647 Email; Robert.gifford@giffordlawyer.com
Dean Anna E. Carpenter: Phone; (405) 325-4702 Email; anna@ou.edu
Don Knight: Phone; (720) 934-7064 Email; don@dknightlaw.com
Open Records Sources:
Supreme Court Case Brief
Supreme Court Petitioner Case Document
OSCN Case file
Private investigation report of Glossip case
Tyler Leatherman Portfolio 
Leave a comment