Editorial revision, October 21, 2026: This account has been revised against the Supreme Court’s opinion. Unsupported quotations, simplified descriptions of the justices’ votes and predictions about later proceedings have been removed.
On February 25, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Richard Glossip was entitled to a new trial in connection with the killing of Barry Van Treese. The ruling concerned false testimony by a central prosecution witness and the prosecution’s failure to correct it.
The witness and the disputed testimony
Justin Sneed admitted killing Van Treese and testified that Glossip had offered to pay him. Glossip denied arranging the murder. The Supreme Court’s majority examined information about Sneed’s psychiatric treatment, his lithium prescription and what prosecutors knew when he testified.
The majority concluded that the prosecution knowingly allowed false testimony to remain uncorrected and that the testimony was material. It held that Glossip was entitled to another trial. The opinion also addressed whether the Oklahoma court’s decision prevented federal review.
Why a single vote count can mislead
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion. Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed with part of the Court’s reasoning but disagreed with its resolution of the merits. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, and Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate.
That division matters when describing the decision. Agreement that a case can be reviewed is different from agreement about the relief that should follow. Readers should consult the opinion’s separate writings instead of relying on a vote total detached from the question being decided.
What the ruling establishes
The decision should be reported as a ruling requiring a new trial, not as an acquittal. It addresses the fairness of the earlier proceedings and the significance of the uncorrected testimony.
For a practical reading sequence, begin with the majority’s description of the testimony, then its explanation of materiality, and finally the separate opinions. This makes it easier to identify both the court’s holding and the points on which the justices disagreed.
This report covers the February 2025 decision. It does not establish the status or result of later trial proceedings.
Primary source
Glossip v. Oklahoma, No. 22-7466, Supreme Court opinion, February 25, 2025.
For updates supported by a later court record, use our corrections process.
