 |
|
Joseph Goebbels on the big lie
|
Glossip attorneys cross line with criticism of DA
EVERYONE deserves a zealous
defense, but efforts to prevent the execution of Richard Glossip are taking on
the appearance of a smear campaign aimed not only at Oklahoma's law enforcement
community, but also all Oklahomans who support them.
Glossip has been convicted, twice, of
paying a co-worker in 1997 to murder his employer, Barry Van Treese. Glossip's
defenders argue the co-worker, Justin Sneed, lied about Glossip's role in order
to avoid the death penalty himself.
Now Glossip's attorneys have come
forward with last-minute affidavits from former convicts who claim to have been
incarcerated with Sneed and heard him make vague comments about sending Glossip
“up the river” for the murder.
Of course, one reason juries believed
Glossip played a role in the killing is because Glossip admitted he tried to
cover up the murder. This, it must be noted, is not a minor point.
Among other things, Glossip diverted
cleaning staff from the motel room where Van Treese had been killed to prevent
discovery of the body; he and Sneed split thousands of dollars stolen from Van
Treese; and Glossip not only failed to immediately tell police investigators he
knew who killed Van Treese, but gave conflicting statements that impeded the
investigation.
In short, for a supposedly innocent
man, Glossip did plenty to look guilty.
The filing of the affidavits led the
court, hours before Glossip was to be executed, to delay the execution by two
weeks. It is now set for Wednesday. Yet this new “evidence” seems shaky, at
best. One former inmate involved, Michael G. Scott, previously admitted to
Department of Corrections officials in 2005 that he lies “all the time.”
Glossip's attorneys did little to
suggest they're confident in the validity of the new affidavits when they
objected to prosecutors interviewing the supposed witnesses. Instead, they
suggested Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater and law enforcement
officials across the state are trying to intimidate defense witnesses and
railroad an innocent man.
Those claims were levied after Rogers
County authorities arrested Scott for parole violations and Prater and other
Oklahoma County officials questioned Scott while he was in custody.
Yet as The Oklahoman's Graham
Lee Brewer reported, “It is not uncommon for prosecutors to interview defense
witnesses directly to determine if what they are saying in an affidavit is
accurate, and sometimes parole arrests play a role in that process.”
Among the details Glossip's attorneys
highlighted was that the room where Scott was interviewed “was equipped with a
camera, although Mr. Scott did not know if it was turned on or not.”
If Scott is telling the truth, why
would a camera be intimidating? On the other hand, if Prater and other law
enforcement officials are pressuring Scott to change his story and frame an
innocent man for a murder he didn't commit and for which he may soon be
executed, why would they film themselves?
Contrary to the implications made by
Glossip's legal team, Prater has a long-established record as an above-board,
independent prosecutor. So his blunt rebuttal of their claims is noteworthy: “The day will come when it will be clear that everything that
the defense lawyers and their witnesses say in this case are lies.”
Glossip's attorneys are obligated to
defend him by every legal means. But if they are demonizing law enforcement
officials for merely doing their jobs, they've gone too far.
