Won’t someone think of the poor prosecutors committing Brady violations to railroad people into the death chamber

Clarence Thomas is, to use the technical legal term, a sick fuck:

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday in Glossip v. Oklahoma, a death penalty case posing a question so bizarre that its very existence should serve as an indictment for capital punishment: Can courts force a state to execute a possibly innocent prisoner when the state itself doesn’t want to? Richard Glossip, the petitioner, argues that prosecutors concealed key evidence and allowed false testimony at his trial, securing a wrongful conviction. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner F. Drummond agrees, supporting Glossip’s quest for a new trial. But the far-right Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled against him, and attempted to insulate its ruling from SCOTUS review by asserting that state law bars any further appeals. Now the Supreme Court must decide whether the lower court successfully thwarted federal reversal—and if not, whether Glossip deserves a new trial that complies with the Constitution.

[…]

One strange feature of Glossip is that everyone agrees Richard Glossip did not personally kill the victim, Barry Van Treese. It was, rather, Justin Sneed who killed Van Treese. Sneed then struck a deal with prosecutors to avoid a death sentence by testifying that Glossip ordered him to carry out the murder. Sneed’s testimony was central to the state’s case against Glossip, and prosecutors sought to prove he could be trusted. At one point, the lead prosecutor, Connie Smothermon, asked Sneed if he took medication; he told the jury he was once prescribed lithium for a “cold” but “never seen no psychiatrist or anything.”

Here’s the problem: Contemporaneous notes, uncovered years later, reflect prosecutors’ knowledge that Sneed was lying. These notes, taken by Smothermon, state that Sneed was “on lithium” and under the care of a “Dr. Trumpet.” The prison psychiatrist who treated Sneed was named “Dr. Trombka.” Glossip’s lawyers think Smothermon was referring to this doctor. They believe these notes show that Smothermon and her co-counsel, Gary Ackley, knew Dr. Trombka treated Sneed with lithium for a psychiatric disorder—but refused to share this information with Glossip.

These omissions are no small matter. The due process clause requires prosecutors to turn over potentially favorable evidence to the defense, and compels them to correct false testimony. Smothermon and Ackley did neither. If they had, Glossip’s attorneys might have undermined Sneed’s credibility by proving that he lied on the stand. They may have more persuasively painted him as the lone killer, too, since Trombka believed Sneed was capable of violent “manic episodes.” Because prosecutors chose to stay silent, Glossip’s attorneys could not make the strongest case for their client.

Yet during Wednesday’s arguments, Thomas sought to recast Smothermon and Ackley as innocent victims of a smear campaign. He immediately asked Seth Waxman, Glossip’s lawyer: “Did you at any point get a statement from either one of the prosecutors?” Waxman told him that he did, in fact, get a sworn statement from Ackley, and that Smothermon was interviewed by an independent counsel appointed by Drummond. So yes: Both prosecutors provided statements. Yet Thomas persisted as if they hadn’t. “It would seem that because not only their reputations are being impugned, but they are central to this case—it would seem that an interview of these two prosecutors would be central.” Waxman protested that, again, both prosecutors were given an opportunity to tell their side of the story. And again, Thomas refused to accept it: “They suggest,” the justice said, “that they were not sought out and given an opportunity to give detailed accounts of what those notes meant.”

In truth, Smothermon and Ackley have had ample opportunity to say their piece. Oklahoma Attorney General Drummond commissioned a thorough probe that included interviews with both prosecutors. Yet when Paul Clement—who represents Drummond—continued defending Glossip, Thomas made the same baseless accusation. “Shouldn’t these two prosecutors—it seems as though their reputations are being impugned,” Thomas told Clement, “and according to them, they did not receive an opportunity to explain in depth.” Clement responded that “that’s hard to square with the record here.” He pointed out that, on top of Drummond’s probe, the Oklahoma Legislature commissioned its own probe of the case, during which Smothermon and Ackley were interviewed.

Thomas then pivoted to minimizing the prosecutors’ misconduct, alternately dismissing the notes as inscrutable and crediting Smothermon’s “explanation” of their irrelevance. Clement explained that “the most plausible inference” is that the notes reveal unconstitutional concealment of evidence. Thomas pivoted back to his false claim that Glossip’s lawyers never spoke to the prosecutors, saying of Smothermon: “Her point is that you didn’t ask her, that you didn’t have an in-depth conversation with her about it. You’re drawing it from the note, which she thinks is inadequate information.”

This back-and-forth dragged on, with the justice refusing to accept reality. “Why wouldn’t they be interviewed?” he asked Clement again. “Why don’t we have materials from them other than in an amicus brief in this case?” Clement could only restate the fact: “Well, with respect, Justice Thomas,” he said, “you do have materials from them.” Thomas just wouldn’t hear it: “What are we to do with the point that they make that they were frozen out of the process?” he asked. An exasperated Clement only continued pointing the justice toward the prosecutors’ own statements.

The line between this and claims that the weather is being controlled by Jewish space lasers is at best a thin one. Thomas, as has long been the case, lives in a dreamworld in which prosecutorial misconduct must by definition be fantastical.

Speaking of sick fucks, Glossip — a case in which the defendant definitely did not kill anyone and the evidence that he was involved comes almost entirely from the self-serving testimony of an extremely unreliable witness prosecutors broke the law to protect — is also the case Sam Alito used to hold that torture was legal if the state cannot figure out a non-torturous way to kill someone. The history of this case is about as good a case study in the utter depravity of the most reactionary wing of the Supreme Court that you can find.