Drummond and defense attorneys for Glossip are set to appear at the Supreme Court on Wednesday seeking a new trial for Glossip, whose case has spanned nearly three decades. Glossip has long maintained his innocence in the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese, a motel owner in Oklahoma City. The case will focus on whether Glossip received a fair trial.

The key witness in Glossip’s case, Justin Sneed, admitted to killing Van Treese but testified that Glossip, the motel’s manager, offered him $10,000 to commit the crime. Sneed’s testimony helped secure Glossip’s 1998 conviction, which was later upheld in a 2004 retrial. In exchange for his testimony, prosecutors did not seek the death penalty for Sneed, who is serving a life sentence.

Glossip’s execution has been delayed multiple times, partly due to concerns about Oklahoma’s lethal injection procedures, but also because of mounting doubts about the fairness of his trial.

The death row inmate’s attorneys argue that prosecutors withheld critical evidence and allowed false testimony to go unchallenged. Don Knight, one of Glossip’s attorneys, claims that Sneed lied on the stand about key details, including his psychiatric history, and that prosecutors were aware but did not correct the record.

After an independent investigation of Glossip’s case, Drummond now supports Glossip’s plea for a new trial. He has cited violations of Glossip’s constitutional rights, specifically the failure to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence, known as a “Brady violation,” and the knowing use of false testimony, which violates due process.

“The people of Oklahoma deserve absolute certainty in the administration of the death penalty,” Drummond said in a statement. He believes executing Glossip based on Sneed’s compromised testimony would be unjust.

Drummond is not the only Republican official who feels similarly.

After Republican state Rep. Kevin McDugle read the review, he found “grave” concerns with Glossip’s conviction. As a defender of the death penalty, he said he would highly reconsider his position if Glossip was ever put to death.

“I know right now they believe that he’s guilty. And I would, too, but after what I’ve seen and that report, there’s no way that Richard Glossip was guilty. There’s no proof at all that proves that he’s guilty,” McDugle told the Washington Examiner in July 2023.

Despite Drummond’s and McDugle’s support for Glossip, the family of Van Treese remains firm in their desire to see Glossip’s conviction upheld, expressing frustration over the continued delays in carrying out the sentence.

The Supreme Court receives dozens of petitions from death row inmates each year, and often their requests are denied outright with no further review, making the justices’ review of the case for Glossip quite notable. And support from Republican officials such as Drummond is even more unique.

Additionally, Glossip is being represented by veteran Supreme Court litigant Paul Clement, who more recently achieved success in a case representing a group of fishermen, which ultimately led to the overturning of the 1984 Chevron doctrine.

Glossip has already been to the Supreme Court before. He was granted reprieve in 2015, and the high court later ruled 5-4 against him in a case surrounding the drugs involved in lethal executions.

The justices have one more capital case on their horizon this term. Earlier this week, they agreed to hear oral arguments in Ruben v. Luis, which surrounds a death row inmate’s bid to obtain post-conviction DNA testing that he claims would exonerate him.

The Supreme Court’s decision on whether Glossip is granted a new trial is expected later this term.