Napue Claims & Glossip: When the Prosecutor Fails to Correct False Evidence

In this blog post, I explore the due process implications of the state’s failure to correct known false evidence and discuss the Supreme Court’s recent application of that principle in Glossip v. Oklahoma.

The Due Process Clause is implicated when a prosecutor fails to correct known false evidence. The leading case on the topic is Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959). There, the Supreme Court held that a conviction must be reversed where the prosecutor fails to correct known false evidence if the false evidence could have played a role in the conviction. A Napue violation exists even when the prosecutor doesn’t know the evidence is false; knowledge on the part of any representative or agent of the prosecution, such as a law enforcement officer, is sufficient.

Glossip v. Oklahoma

             Just recently, the Supreme Court applied Napue’s principles when it reversed Richard Glossip’s capital murder conviction in Glossip v. Oklahoma, 604 U.S. 226 (2025). Glossip’s case is worth examining not only to understand Napue’s application but also because it is interesting. Glossip has been scheduled for execution nine times. Throughout the case, he has persisted in his innocence. Lending credibility to his innocence claim, several leading causes of wrongful convictions are present in his case, including police and prosecutorial misconduct and false informant testimony.

Glossip’s Facts

In 1997, Glossip managed a hotel in Oklahoma City that was owned by Barry Van Treese. Justin Sneed, a 19-year-old with a history of violence and methamphetamine use, lived in one of the hotel rooms in exchange for work at the hotel. One day, when Van Treese arrived to collect cash deposits, Sneed beat him to death with a baseball bat.

Glossip first told police that he did not know about the murder but admitted that he helped Sneed replace a broken window in the room where Van Treese’s body was found. The next day, however, Glossip admitted to police that Sneed confessed to the murder.

The police eventually interviewed Sneed. Before letting him talk, the officers told him that “before he made up his mind on anything, they wanted him to hear some of the things they had to say.” They proceeded to tell Sneed that they knew he had not acted alone and should not “take the whole thing.” They also told him that “everybody was making Sneed the scapegoat in this,” especially Glossip “who was putting it on him the worst.” Following the officers’ lead, Sneed initially implicated his brother. He then changed the story, claiming that Glossip asked him to rob Van Trease and the robbery went wrong. Both Glossip and Sneed were charged with capital murder.

The State offered Glossip a deal that would allow him to avoid the death penalty in exchange for his testimony against Sneed. When Glossip refused, the State went to Sneed with the same deal in exchange for testimony against Glossip. Sneed accepted.

Glossip’s Trials

Glossip was tried twice. Both times, Sneed’s testimony was the only direct evidence tying Glossip to the murder. Although Sneed initially told police that Glossip only wanted him to rob Van Treese, Sneed testified at the first trial that Glossip wanted him to kill Van Trease and he did not know the reason. Glossip’s conviction was reversed after an appellate court found that his attorney was ineffective for not adequately cross-examining Sneed about his inconsistent statements.

At the second trial, a medical examiner testified that Van Trease was killed with a knife and baseball bat. That presented a problem for the prosecution because Sneed denied stabbing Van Treese at the first trial. Nevertheless, at the second trial, Sneed testified that he had repeatedly stabbed Van Treese. Glossip sought a mistrial, citing the prosecutor’s failure to disclose Sneed’s changed testimony, but the prosecutor denied knowledge. The court denied the motion.

Sneed also changed his testimony about Glossip’s motive, now claiming that Glossip wanted him to murder Van Treese so he could steal money, manage the hotel, and avoid being fired. He further testified that a jail doctor prescribed him lithium after he had asked for cold medicine and that he had never seen a psychiatrist. Then, in closing argument, the prosecutor claimed that Glossip manipulated Sneed who was otherwise nonviolent. Glossip was convicted and sentenced to death.

Post-Trial Events

Doubts grew about Glossip’s conviction. A law firm retained by the Oklahoma legislature investigated the case and issued a report. The report noted that the State had intentionally destroyed key evidence before the second trial and falsely portrayed Sneed as nonviolent. It also noted that an officer who had led Sneed to implicate Glossip was later jailed for making false statements in a separate case.

Soon after the report, the State produced seven boxes of evidence that were never disclosed to Glossip. One of those boxes contained a note from the prosecutor to Sneed’s attorney, dated prior to the second trial, expressing her concerns about Sneed’s testimony.  In particular, the prosecutor wanted to talk to Sneed about the medical examiner’s testimony that Van Treese had been stabbed. The boxes also contained letters from Sneed stating that he wanted to recant his testimony implicating Glossip.

The State later discovered an eighth box of documents that were withheld from Glossip. This box included a note written by the prosecutor indicating she knew Sneed had been prescribed lithium prior to his arrest and Sneed’s medical records diagnosing him with bipolar disorder. Another independent review concluded that the prosecutor violated the rule of sequestration when she interfered with Sneed’s knife testimony, violated Brady when she failed to disclose Sneed’s mental health information, and violated Napue when she failed to correct Sneed’s false testimony about his mental health. Glossip filed a postconviction petition based on the newly discovered evidence. Although the state conceded the Napue violation and agreed reversal was warranted, the Oklahoma courts affirmed Glossip’s conviction.

The Supreme Court’s Napue Analysis

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, finding that the prosecutor’s failure to correct Sneed’s false testimony violated Napue. The Court noted that the prosecutor had to have known about Sneed’s lithium prescription and bipolar diagnosis because she had access to both his medical records and a competency evaluation in which Sneed told the evaluator that he was prescribed lithium “after his tooth was pulled.” Moreover, the prosecutor’s own notes established that she knew about Sneed’s lithium prescription before trial.

The Court then considered whether the Napue violation was material—whether there was a reasonable likelihood that it affected the jury’s judgment. It noted that Sneed’s testimony was the only evidence of Glossip’s guilt. Had the prosecutor acknowledged that Sneed lied under oath, it would have significantly impacted the jury’s assessment of his credibility. The Court further noted that, although the prosecutor told the jury that Sneed was harmless absent Glossip’s influence, evidence established that bipolar disorder combined with Sneed’s methamphetamine use could trigger impulsive violence.

The state court, the Supreme Court explained, had misapplied Napue. Although defense counsel may have known about Sneed’s lithium use at trial, the duty to correct false testimony falls on the State, not the defense.

Glossip’s Retrial

Oklahoma has elected to retry Glossip for noncapital murder. He was denied bond and is currently in jail awaiting retrial.

Contact Reaney Law Office

Napue claims are usually raised in postconviction and habeas corpus petitions because they typically require evidence outside the record to prove that the evidence was false and that the state knew. It’s important to find an attorney experienced in postconviction proceedings to properly investigate and raise your claim.

Contact us at 618-713-6258 for a free consultation.