OKLAHOMA CITY - Attorney General John O'Connor today released the following statement, "The State respects the right of those who support Richard Glossip to voice their opinions and even to attempt to try this case in the media. However, my office is fully devoted to our responsibility as prosecutors to seek justice.
"If there were evidence that revealed Glossip’s innocence, we would be the first ones to ask the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to grant him an evidentiary hearing. When justified in past cases, this office has joined with defendants in their requests for evidentiary hearings. We have also informed the Court in the past when an argument made on appeal requires relief.
"Despite several court filings by Glossip’s attorneys, we have seen no such evidence in this case.
"The courts are the forum for claims of innocence. I trust the Court of Criminal Appeals to sort through the record and to make its determination. It is that Court which has the authority to order a new hearing. Neither the Governor nor the Attorney General can order a new hearing.
"In today’s press conference, it was repeatedly said that Justin Sneed has wanted to 'recant' his testimony against Glossip. A careful reading of the latest report by Reed Smith reveals that, when Mr. Sneed used the word 'recant,' Sneed was referring to his hope to negotiate a shorter prison term in exchange for his testimony at Glossip’s second trial – but that never happened.
"In fact, just this year Sneed stood by his earlier testimony against Glossip in both trials, reporting that, far from telling his family Glossip was not guilty, he told them: 'it’s the truth and there’s nothing else to be there, but to stand on the truth.'
"It is disappointing that Glossip’s supporters are criticizing law enforcement, prosecutors, juries, and judges in an attempt to distract the public from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of Glossip’s guilt.
"As prosecutors, we must be very cautious to respect the duty of the courts to reach the right result without public pressure. This ethical obligation includes a prohibition against discussing the evidence in a case unless it has been made public. The only items that Mr. Glossip’s counsel have not been able to review are work product materials, which are protected by law from disclosure, 12 O.S.2021, § 3226(3). And again, my office has ensured that nothing within those privileged documents falls within a prosecutor’s special duty to disclose.
"My office will continue to abide by the rules of law and ethics. Any insinuation to the contrary is false."