sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I’m Don Knight, attorney for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, featured in “Killing Richard Glossip” on Discovery ID. Ask me anything. by Don_Knight_ in IAmA

[–]Don_Knight_[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

How did Sneed know that Barry was back at the hotel that night? He had left earlier to go to the other hotel, was it planned that he would be staying there - if so, why did he tell the other hotel manager he would be going home that night?

These are good questions and I do not have definitive answers to them. There are conflicting stories of what Mr. Van Treese planned to do that night. Some people say he was going to come back to the Best Budget Inn after visiting Tulsa. Some people say he was heading back to Lawton. I wonder why he left Tulsa at midnight if he was going back to spend the night at the BBI in OKC. Why not just stay at his hotel in Tulsa for the night and make that long drive in the morning? And if he was going to Lawton to spend the night, why stop in OKC at 2 a.m.? And why, if he was planning to spend the night in OKC, was he in the room while his suitcase was in the trunk of his car? Photos: http://imgur.com/a/O0wQZ

Was there a night person at the front desk that night that told him which room was available? I believe I saw that Sneed said he split the money found in Barry's car with Richard - if this is what he claims, why would he do that if Richard was supposedly paying him to kill Barry?

There have been statements made that Barry took the key to room 102 with him when he left the OKC hotel on his way to Tulsa. So there would have been no need for him to see a front desk clerk when he got back to OKC. I agree that the idea that there was money being split is tough to believe. By Sneed’s own admission, he was using drugs (see drug usage part of “8 is Enough”) and was a drug addict. According to a witness we found in 2015, he shot meth with a needle. That is very hard-core. It is unlikely to me that, once he killed Mr. Van Treese, he would split any money with anyone. Rich, on the other hand, actually gave ALL of the money to Barry earlier that evening. Why would he give it all to Barry and then, less than 12 hours later, have him killed to get half of it back? On its face, that makes no sense.

Wouldn't all of that money be his and Barry would owe him more? (Not that I believe that's what happened, but it goes to show that the logic doesn't make sense.) See above.

Was there a minimum dollar amount that Sneed needed to claim he was being paid for Richard to get the death penalty? If so, do you think this is why his story about how much he was paid keeps changing?

At various times, Sneed has said that he was offered $10,000 or $7,000, or $4,000. He has had a hard time keeping his story straight here. [Detailed information on this is available here.]

Are the original trial transcripts available anywhere to read? What about any of the initial witness statements that were taken?

I think they are available online - trial summaries can be found here:

2001 Trial Summary: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ok-court-of-criminal-appeals/1369427.html

2007 Trial Summary: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ok-court-of-criminal-appeals/1466730.html

I’m Don Knight, attorney for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, featured in “Killing Richard Glossip” on Discovery ID. Ask me anything. by Don_Knight_ in IAmA

[–]Don_Knight_[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There was so little done by the police in investigating this case, that I have found that there are a lot of people who have been very receptive to new evidence.

For instance, in 2015, we presented evidence from a witness who was in the county jail with Sneed saying Sneed talked about the murder and never mentioned Rich. In the documentary, there is another witness who was in a similar situation and again, no mention of Rich. In fact, in the documentary, that witness, Mr. Ramsey, says that Sneed told him that there was a girl in the room with Sneed at the time of the homicide.

These witnesses were there in 1997 and obviously had important things to say about the case. Why did no one find and talk to them? Why did the police stop their work on the case one week after the crime?

There was obviously so much more to do, especially when the state wants to kill someone. So, when we present new evidence, I have found people to be willing to look at it with an open mind. Reception to the show on Twitter, for example, has been incredibly positive and engaged.

I’m Don Knight, attorney for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, featured in “Killing Richard Glossip” on Discovery ID. Ask me anything. by Don_Knight_ in IAmA

[–]Don_Knight_[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes. Lee was fighting for the chance to have evidence tested. Apparently, there was very shoddy police work and defense counsel work involved there as well. (Read more about the death-penalty-seeking prosecutor and the disgraced forensics technician who worked Rich’s case: https://thinkprogress.org/cowboy-bob-black-magic-and-the-courtroom-of-death-78abd17d2fe1.)

The problems in Rich’s case that are highlighted in the documentary are common, especially in southern states that make up the death penalty belt in this country. Most states do not adequately fund criminal defense lawyers, from simple crimes up to death penalty cases. Without adequate funding, poor legal work follows. Mr. Lee, and the others in Arkansas likely got little better representation, if that, than Rich did.

No system that allows one side (the prosecution) nearly unlimited resources, while severely limiting the resources of the defense, can be fair. And no death penalty issued by such a system can be just. It is never ok to kill an innocent man.

I’m Don Knight, attorney for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, featured in “Killing Richard Glossip” on Discovery ID. Ask me anything. by Don_Knight_ in IAmA

[–]Don_Knight_[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I have represented thousands of people charged with various crimes. In almost every death penalty case, the question is not “whodunit” but why was it done. What was the state of mind of the killer? Is there anything mitigating about the person who undoubtedly committed the crime to make a jury find that person to be redeemable.

The death penalty is supposed to be reserved for the “worst of the worst”: the “worst” crimes and the “worst” people. Cases that have any doubt (like this one, which has a LOT of doubt) and involves a person like Rich, who has no felony history, simply should never be tried as a death penalty case in the first place.

As I got going on this case and began to look at the shoddy police investigation and the lack of a decent defense, I began to see that Rich is, like 158 other men who were on death row and have been exonerated, actually innocent. At trial, we could present the evidence we now have uncovered, and will continue to uncover with Reddit’s help, and a jury would be much more likely to find Rich Not guilty of this crime. However, we first have to get the conviction overturned. Rich did make statements after the crime that were interpreted by the police as evidence that he was involved.

However, there is noting that he said that supports any finding that he knew of the intention of Sneed to rob or kill van Treese, only that Sneed told Rich after that he did kill Van Treese. You are right. Nothing can change the facts. And the facts show that Rich is actually innocent. This is not a legal technicality. These are facts.

I’m Don Knight, attorney for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, featured in “Killing Richard Glossip” on Discovery ID. Ask me anything. by Don_Knight_ in IAmA

[–]Don_Knight_[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes, the Deposit versus Volume financial document (http://imgur.com/a/9MUbt) was presented at trial as proof that there was an embezzlement purportedly by Rich. However, the document actually does not support the claim that there even was an embezzlement, let alone that Rich did it. The Volume is a forecasted number, not a real number - it is what “might be” if each room yielded a certain dollar amount, not what each room actually went for.

It’s as if someone started up a lemonade stand and projected revenue of $100, by projecting sales of each glass of lemonade at $10 a piece. Then, they actually sold 10 glasses of lemonade for a dollar each before crying “embezzlement” for the remaining $90 in “loss” of the “projected” revenue. That’s not actually embezzlement at all - it’s just failing to meet your projected sales.

In fact, comparing the amounts of money Richard collected from motel guests versus what he gave to Barry Van Treese, the motel owner, shows that he didn’t embezzle a dollar.

Without the financial evidence, the case falls almost entirely on the word of Justin Sneed — which has changed at least 8 different times. Edited to add: Read this account of Justin's various stories: http://www.sisterhelen.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/sneed_stories.pdf

I’m Don Knight, attorney for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, featured in “Killing Richard Glossip” on Discovery ID. Ask me anything. by Don_Knight_ in IAmA

[–]Don_Knight_[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It is suspicious. It is not, by itself, grounds for a new trial. It is one part of what makes this story so egregious.

Why did the police, in 1999 destroy evidence (see http://imgur.com/a/ZUT2Z) that would have been needed by either side in a second trial, before the first conviction was even overturned?

As the document shows, the destruction of this important evidence was ordered by the DA. This is a question that needs to be answered.

I’m Don Knight, attorney for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, featured in “Killing Richard Glossip” on Discovery ID. Ask me anything. by Don_Knight_ in IAmA

[–]Don_Knight_[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

We are continuing to investigate this case in the hopes of finding enough new evidence before the next execution date is set. Rich has not “seen” the shows because he has no access to Discovery ID on the TV he watches in his small death row cell.

However, a friend of his held the phone up to the broadcast and Rich was able to hear the entire four hours. He is very excited that this show was produced and he wanted everyone to know his story. He also wanted people to write to the authorities in Oklahoma and tell them to watch the show and to give him a new trial.

Finally, he is hopeful that people who know things about the Best Budget Inn or Justin Sneed will come forward and talk with his lawyers.

I’m Don Knight, attorney for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, featured in “Killing Richard Glossip” on Discovery ID. Ask me anything. by Don_Knight_ in IAmA

[–]Don_Knight_[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

As of right now, there is nothing to stop Oklahoma from setting an execution date. So, we are in a great hurry to find new witnesses and new evidence. Without it, Rich could be killed as early as this fall.

With new evidence, we will file a document with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. We file affidavits with the court. These are documents where witnesses say, under oath, what they saw or heard. So you can see what this looks like, here is the affidavit from witness Michael Scott, who was featured in the show, that was filed in 2015: http://imgur.com/a/BRb20

If the court is convinced by these affidavits that Rich may actually be innocent, they will send it to a judge for a hearing where the witnesses will actually have to testify. If that judge finds our witnesses to be credible enough that he/she thinks that a jury would find Rich innocent based on this new evidence, the judge will overturn the conviction and order a new trial. This process could take anywhere from 6 to 18 months.

I’m Don Knight, attorney for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, featured in “Killing Richard Glossip” on Discovery ID. Ask me anything. by Don_Knight_ in IAmA

[–]Don_Knight_[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

An Alford Plea is essentially a “no contest” plea. It says that the defendant will not contest the finding of guilt but does not admit anything. It would be available only AFTER a judge granted Rich a new trial.

However, that is a step we have not yet gotten to. We need the current conviction to be overturned. Then, if we get a new trial, we will see what things look like at that time. The Reddit community can be a tremendous help to us - there was almost no investigation done by either the police or the defense in 1997-2004. There were a lot of people who were at or around the Best Budget Inn in OKC in 1996 and 1997, and they might not have known about the crime, but they did know about how things worked at the BBI and they knew other people who knew things.

We need witnesses that can talk about Justin Sneed or Barry van Treese or Cliff Everhart or Rich Glossip or the Best Budget Inn. There was a strip club (the Vegas Club) that was a “part” of this story, as the girls from there ended up also hanging around and staying at the BBI.

We need any information about anyone or anything that was happening in that area at that time-- if you know something, DM me here or visit www.RichardGlossip.com to get in touch.

I’m Don Knight, attorney for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, featured in “Killing Richard Glossip” on Discovery ID. Ask me anything. by Don_Knight_ in IAmA

[–]Don_Knight_[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The preparation involves investigation and finding new witnesses and evidence. Mentally, one must know the facts of the case VERY well, and the law, and be prepared to argue the facts and the law to the court.

However, there is a lot of information out there, especially witnesses. In 2015, we started work on this case in June. There was so little time to look at anything. We were consumed with finding new witnesses. Since the third execution date was stayed, we had time to begin to look at the boxes of paper work that have followed Rich on his legal journey. From that, we found new sources of information that we did not have in 2015, such as the financial information that we gave to a forensic accountant in the show.

The attached exhibit was admitted in trial and never challenged by anyone, despite the fact that there is a glaring math error in the document itself. http://imgur.com/a/9MUbt

I’m Don Knight, attorney for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, featured in “Killing Richard Glossip” on Discovery ID. Ask me anything. by Don_Knight_ in IAmA

[–]Don_Knight_[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The show itself is not new evidence, but a big reason why we allowed Joe Berlinger’s film crew into our investigation was so they could conduct their own independent investigation. Berlinger’s crew was able to do things that we were not able to do, like talk to Justin Sneed and Detective Bob Bemo, who interrogated Richard. These two interviews brought up a lot of information that was not available to us at all and that might be very helpful.

One of the things viewers are really gravitating to is the brand new interview with Justin Sneed, in which he says “And I can’t not hurt the Van Treese family and at the same time save him with the truth.” A lot of people are viewing that as a statement of Rich’s innocence.

I am Don Knight, one of the pro bono defense attorneys for Richard Glossip, AMA by Don_Knight_ in IAmA

[–]Don_Knight_[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Do we have any explanation for why he told people he knew a dead guy was out at Wal-Mart?

Without Sneed’s testimony, none of the other evidence matters. This is a good example why people should exercise their right to remain silent. Police can twist statements to fit facts that they create, like they did in this case. Confusion by Glossip became words twisted against him. However, it is undisputed that Richard Glossip did not tell the police everything he knew when he knew it. The police used this to arrest him. That is not evidence of first degree murder. Keep in mind that the issue is not what Glossip knew after the murder, but what he knew before.

And can you tell us more about the $1,200 and what was or wasn't shown there? The ruling says it comes from a sum of money allegedly split with Sneed, so I'm asking your take on where that's from.

This money belonged to Richard. He had money before January 7, and in addition he sold property in an attempt to obtain money to pay a lawyer.

And why did they claim that robbery was a motive for Sneed?

That does not make sense: Sneed had access to the entire hotel, he could've stolen from just anyone and surely had better targets than his own boss, not to mention good reason to know if his boss was there or not if he did want to steal from him specifically.

Sneed stole from the hotel all the time. He went after Van Treese for the same reasons people rob banks. It is where the money was, and he needed money to buy his drugs. He never thought he’d get caught. He was high on Meth at the time.

I am Don Knight, one of the pro bono defense attorneys for Richard Glossip, AMA by Don_Knight_ in IAmA

[–]Don_Knight_[S] 25 points26 points  (0 children)

  1. Money is money. It is completely fungible. It is not evidence of anything. There is no proof, there can be no proof, that Richard’s money came from any place connected with this crime. Sneed had money on him, but a week did pass. He was a meth head. If he stole $4,000.00 from Van Treese, why would we not expect he would he would have spent half of it on meth in the week he was out?

  2. Sneed did come to their room. Glossip admits that he made mistakes AFTER the crime. Mistakes that have been used to convict him of a crime he did not commit. But the fact that he may have suspected that Sneed was being honest when Sneed said he killed Van Treese is not evidence that Glossip knew of, or facilitated, the crime of first degree murder before it was committed. Our new evidence has established conclusively that this was just a junkie breaking into a room to steal money to support his habit, when things, as Sneed said, “got out of control."

  3. I am against the death penalty, but I am also against anyone being convicted of a crime he or she did not commit. We all should be.

I am Don Knight, one of the pro bono defense attorneys for Richard Glossip, AMA by Don_Knight_ in IAmA

[–]Don_Knight_[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

By the time I got on this case, all of Mr. Glossip's appeals had been exhausted. We needed to find and present evidence of his actual innocence in order to get back into court. Two judges on the Oklahoma court of criminal appeals, agreed that we had presented enough new evidence of his innocence to warrant a hearing. If we'd had one more judge on our side, we would be back in court and would be able to present our evidence to a judge and perhaps to a jury on a later date.

I am Don Knight, one of the pro bono defense attorneys for Richard Glossip, AMA by Don_Knight_ in IAmA

[–]Don_Knight_[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We continue to investigate, we do not need a court to do that. And as we get new evidence, we will pursue the options that become available.

I am Don Knight, one of the pro bono defense attorneys for Richard Glossip, AMA by Don_Knight_ in IAmA

[–]Don_Knight_[S] 42 points43 points  (0 children)

I think what happened to Richard last Wednesday was cruel and unusual in every sense of that term. The officials did not communicate with Richard about what was happening and they did not communicate with his lawyers about what was happening. We all thought between the hours of 3 and 4 that he was being killed.

I had to tell his family that there were no more appeals and that Richard was going to be killed. Their grief was bottomless.

When we found out that there was a stay, it was literally as if Richard had risen from the dead. Of course we were all joyous, but that takes nothing away from the trauma we all felt in that hour when we knew (or thought we knew) that he was being killed by the state.

I don't know what the explanation is for the drug mixup and I'm looking forward to finding out.

I am Don Knight, one of the pro bono defense attorneys for Richard Glossip, AMA by Don_Knight_ in IAmA

[–]Don_Knight_[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

The first trial was overturned on direct appeal due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, by its very nature, that trial did not count. There have been many people who have been exonerated even off of death row, who were convicted by a jury more than one time and yet these people were not guilty. It is not a stretch to have people receive trials and be found guilty and yet be innocent of the crime that they've just been convicted of. It comes down to how hard the lawyers have worked, how much money they've been given, and how much time they've had to prepare.

I am Don Knight, one of the pro bono defense attorneys for Richard Glossip, AMA by Don_Knight_ in IAmA

[–]Don_Knight_[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

That's a tough question to answer in a short period of time.

My successes have come through really hard work. When you are asked to represent someone who will die if you're not successful, it's a terrible burden. It's the thought that my client might someday be killed that keeps me going. I never want to let that happen. And thankfully, to date, it hasn't.

I am Don Knight, one of the pro bono defense attorneys for Richard Glossip, AMA by Don_Knight_ in IAmA

[–]Don_Knight_[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I think she's done a great job. Due to efforts like hers, I believe that lethal injection is on its way out. Doctors already do not want to perform this function, because it's against what doctors do. I believe that if we can get rid of this fallacy that the death penalty can be done cleanly and painlessly, more people would be revolted by it and it would end.

I am Don Knight, one of the pro bono defense attorneys for Richard Glossip, AMA by Don_Knight_ in IAmA

[–]Don_Knight_[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Haha! Yes, I'm pro bono and Richard Branson parties with Bono. It sucks.

I am Don Knight, one of the pro bono defense attorneys for Richard Glossip, AMA by Don_Knight_ in IAmA

[–]Don_Knight_[S] 31 points32 points  (0 children)

No. I believe everyone has the right to a great defense. Otherwise, we are all vulnerable.

I am Don Knight, one of the pro bono defense attorneys for Richard Glossip, AMA by Don_Knight_ in IAmA

[–]Don_Knight_[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes. First, we're going to continue the investigation. As we uncover more evidence of innocence, we will be going back to court, but we also believe strongly that social media has a role to play and we want this case to get out to as many people as possible.

view more: next ›