The Supreme Court Hears Glossip v. Oklahoma

We the People

National Constitution Center

History, News Commentary, News

4.6 • 1K Ratings

🗓️ 18 October 2024

⏱️ 57 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Glossip v. Oklahoma, a case challenging the constitutionality of Richard Glossip’s conviction and sentencing to death for a 1997 murder. In this episode, Paul Cassell of the University of Utah and Andrea Miller of the Oklahoma Innocence Project join Jeffrey Rosen to recap the oral arguments and debate whether or not Glossip’s conviction should stand in light of newly revealed documents that allegedly suggest prosecutorial misconduct. Resources: Glossip v. Oklahoma, Supreme Court oral argument (audio via C-SPAN; transcript) Brief of Amicus Curiae the Innocence Project in Support of Petitioner Richard Eugene Glossip, Glossip v. Oklahoma Paul G. Cassell, “Brief of Victim Family Members Derek Van Treese, Donna Van Treese, and Alana Mileto as Amici Curiae in Support of Affirming the Judgment Below,” Glossip v. Oklahoma Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected] Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Last week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Glossop versus Oklahoma,
0:05.0	a case challenging the constitutionality of Richard Glossop's conviction for a 1997 murder. 97 Murder. Hello, friends.
0:15.0	I'm Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center and welcome
0:19.7	to We The People, a weekly show of constitutional debate.
0:23.0	The National Constitution Centers a nonpartisan nonprofit chartered by Congress to increase awareness
0:28.8	and understanding of the Constitution among the American people. In this episode, we'll recap the oral arguments
0:35.0	and debate whether or not Glossop's conviction
0:38.0	should stand in light of newly revealed documents
0:40.0	that allegedly suggest prosecutorial misconduct.
0:44.1	Joining me to discuss this important question
0:46.4	are two leading scholars in criminal law.
0:50.4	Andrea Miller is the legal director for the Oklahoma Innocence Project at Oklahoma City University School of Law.
0:56.5	Before joining the Innocence Projects, he served as the appellate division chief for the Oklahoma County Public Defender's Office handling capital, general
1:04.9	felony, and misdemeanor cases. She's also been an adjunct professor at Oklahoma
1:08.8	City University School of Law. Andrea, it is great to welcome you to We The People.
1:14.2	It's nice to be here, thank you.
1:16.3	And Paul G. Kisell is the Ronald and Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and the University
1:21.4	Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Utah's
1:25.1	S.J. Quine College of Law.
1:27.6	He's a leading researcher on criminal justice issues and has published many widely cited articles on topics such as crime victims rights,
1:35.0	wrongful convictions, interrogation, confessions, and proactive policing.
1:39.8	He previously served as U.S. District Judge for the District of Utah from 2002 to 2007.
	...

Transcript will be available on the free plan in -165 days. Upgrade to see the full transcript now.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from National Constitution Center, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of National Constitution Center and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.