[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----OKLAHOMA

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 11




OKLAHOMA----impending execution

Fox 25 Investigation: Testimony discrepancy uncovered during death penalty 
trial raise new questions about execution


The next man on Oklahoma's death row has less than a week to live. His lawyers 
say they need more time as they do the investigation supporters of Richard 
Glossip say was never done in his original trials. As Fox 25 has continued to 
look into these claims we uncovered evidence of discrepancies during a key 
witness' testimony. That testimony is now being called into question by a 
forensic scientist who says the jury was misinformed during their key life or 
death decision.

The governor's office has repeatedly pointed to the fact Richard Glossip 
received 2 trials and they are upholding the will of 24 jurors who sentenced 
him to death. When Fox 25 revealed one of the jurors for the 1st trial said 
their verdict would change based on newly revealed details of the crime, the 
governor's office said the focus should be on the 2nd trial which was narrowly 
upheld in the appeals court.

Fox 25 reached out to jurors from that trial in our continuing effort to 
investigate claims by Glossip's that key facts were left out of his defense. We 
are not disclosing the identities of the jurors who spoke with us. The majority 
of the claims by Glossip's defense team center around the unreliability of the 
testimony of Justin Sneed, the man who beat Barry Van Treese to death with a 
baseball bat.

One juror told Fox 25 they did not believe much of Sneed's testimony because 
they saw him as a teenager who was saying whatever he had to in order to save 
his own life. Another juror said they fully believed Sneed's version of events. 
However when it came to determining the Glossip's guilt, both jurors said the 
it was the testimony of the pathologist from the State Medical Examiner's 
office.

During the trial the pathologist testified Van Treese slowly bled to death. The 
testimony indicates jurors were left with the impression Van Treese could have 
been alive as much as 8 hours after Sneed's attack. Jurors told Fox 25 they 
convicted Glossip because he could have saved Van Treese's life if he had 
called police immediately after Sneed told him he committed the murder. The 
juror said that action made Glossip not only guilty, but callous enough to 
deserve death. Glossip has never denied not telling police key facts early on 
in the investigation, but has always held that he did not ask or solicit Sneed 
to murder Van Treese.

In Sneed's confession to police he said he hit Van Treese until he stopped 
bleeding and even returned to the room and hit him again to make sure he was 
dead.

When Fox 25 examined trial testimony and the official record, we found a 
significant discrepancy between the trial testimony and the medical examiner's 
autopsy report.

"There should never be a discrepancy between an autopsy report and what a 
medical examiner testifies to in court," said attorney Jaye Mendros. Mendros 
says she has had trial where that has happened and even helped lead the fight 
to reform the state medical examiner's office.

"The short answer is it was a train wreck," Mendros said of the agency during 
the late 1990s and early 2000s, "I mean the medical examiner's office had a lot 
of problems during this time period." Mendros worked with families as they 
lobbied for reforms. Governor Mary Fallin signed those reforms into law in 
2011. One bill in particular allowed families a legal recourse for families 
when there is evidence of errors made by the Medical Examiner's office. In an 
email exchange the governor's office says that bill was about better management 
of the ME's office and she never doubted the accuracy of any findings by the 
state pathologists.

"If there is any question at all that hinges on the reliability of the medical 
examiner's office from this time period I would say there should be a 
significant doubt as to the accuracy and reliability," Mendros told Fox 25.

According to the pathologist autopsy report, Van Treese died from blunt force 
and head injuries. The report makes no mention of blood loss. However during 
the 2nd trial the pathologist downplayed the head injuries and told jurors Van 
Treese's death was from blood loss and took hours.

Fox 25 presented these questions to Glossip's new defense team which was not 
looking at the testimony of the pathologist. The attorneys said they have been 
focused on finding new evidence, but the discrepancies we uncovered were so 
serious they sent all the reports to an independent forensic pathologist.

Dr. Carl Wigren's review found the Oklahoma pathology report showed the 
opposite of what the testimony said and said the science shows Van Treese died 
within a matter of minutes. The testimony of Justin Sneed backs this finding up 
and shows Sneed was likely present during the death.

In a statement Dr. Wigren said:

"It is my understanding that the attorneys for defendant Mr. Glossip did not 
engage the services of a forensic pathologist to review the case and provide 
testimony at either of his 2 trials. Considering the gravity of the outcome for 
Mr. Glossip, this is an unconscionable act of omission on the part of both 
defense teams. Even with my 11th hour review of the case, there are blatant 
inconsistencies in the testimony of the pathologist who performed the 
examination. Despite the fact that important information can be gleaned from 
the autopsy photographs, I was told that they are not available and were never 
reviewed by a consulting forensic pathologist.

The entirety of materials including police narratives, autopsy report, 
pathologist's testimony statements, and autopsy photographs must be reviewed by 
a non-conflicted, outside forensic pathologist. It is essential that the 
conclusions that were accepted at trial were based on accepted scientific and 
medical principles."

In fact, the testimony shows Glossip's defense attorneys never objected to the 
pathologist's testimony, even though the testimony in the second trial was 
different than the pathologist's testimony in the 1st trial. In addition, this 
discrepancy was never brought up in any appeal. Mendros says during the time 
period of Glossip's trial it was difficult for public defenders to get funding 
for independent experts and it was years after Glossip's appeal was filed when 
the questionable facts about the medical examiner's office began to emerge.

"There were a lot of problems going on during this period of time that didn't 
come to light until later when these investigations started taking place in 
2009," Mendros said.

(source: KOKH TV news)