The U.S. Supreme Court is currently deliberating on the case of Richard Glossip, who has been convicted in a controversial murder case and is facing the death penalty. During recent oral arguments, justices expressed skepticism regarding Glossip's appeal, with some justices reportedly wanting to uphold the death sentence despite concerns over his potential innocence. Legal experts have highlighted the broader implications of this case, especially in relation to wrongful convictions and the death penalty, referencing other cases like that of Marcellus Williams, who was executed in Missouri. The uncertainty surrounding the court's decision has been described as a crisis in the justice system, with discussions ongoing about the need for error correction in capital cases. The court's stance appears to reflect a reluctance to engage deeply with the complexities of wrongful convictions, as noted by various legal commentators.
In the Glossip oral argument, J. Alito & other conservatives seemed annoyed to have to address a capital case, even though the docket has room for correcting miscarriages of justice. I discuss in "Is SCOTUS Error Correction in Capital Cases Feasible?" https://t.co/53yxq9kPTE
“The Anti-Abortion Movement Is Pivoting Back to Victimhood at the Supreme Court”: Sarah Lipton-Lubet has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate. https://t.co/suRVnGRTnF
“Clarence Thomas Thinks the Real Victims Are Prosecutors Who Engage in Misconduct”: Mark Joseph Stern has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate. And online at Balls and Strikes, Madiba K. Dennie has an essay titled “Three Supreme Court Justices Wanted https://t.co/veqzYC8XX0