Glossip Files for Clemency in case that Has drawn support from Republican Lawmakers pushing for hearing based on new evidence of innocence

Oklahoma City — Today (Friday, August 12), attorneys for Richard Glossip filed a clemency petition with the Oklahoma Board of Pardon and Parole, stating that “Mr. Glossip had no prior criminal record and has been a model prisoner for over 25 years while he has maintained his innocence,” and that “[t]he State of Oklahoma intends to make its fourth attempt to execute innocent man Richard Glossip on September 22, 2022 – even while the real killer, Justin Sneed, is serving a life sentence for the same crime.” (p. 1)

“His conviction is the product of an inexcusably negligent police investigation, coercive and unreliable interrogation techniques, intentional destruction by the State of key physical evidence prior to the trial, prosecutors’ presentation of unvetted, unreliable evidence, and incompetent state-provided defense attorneys, among other breakdowns of the justice system.” (p. 1)

The clemency petition is filed on the heels of a letter signed by 62 Oklahoma state legislators, including 46 Republicans – many pro-death penalty – requesting an evidentiary hearing for Mr. Glossip based on an independent investigation led by the Reed Smith law firm at the behest of an Oklahoma Ad Hoc Legislative  Committee.

New evidence supporting Glossip’s innocence claim uncovered by Reed Smith includes the release this week of a handwritten letter by Sneed expressing a wish to recant his testimony implicating Glossip, which he never did due to stern warnings from his Public Defender that it would place him on death row.

“The clock is ticking down for Richard Glossip”, said Don Knight, lead counsel for Richard Glossip.

“Over 40% of the legislature and many wonderful Oklahomans are concerned that the State will be executing an innocent man. It is not too late to save him, and we hope this appeal to the pardons board members for clemency will be heard, forwarded to the Governor, and acted on.”

More information about Richard Glossip’s case can be found at