00:00:00
00:00:01
Season Five: Capital Crime
121 Plays11 hours ago
In Today’s Episode, we talk about one of the most heavily litigated capital cases in American History.
This podcast was made possible by www.labrottiecreations.com Check out their merchandise and specifically their fun pop pet art custom pieces made from photos of your very own pets. Use the promo code CRIMEXS for 20% off a fun, brightly colored, happy piece of art of your own pet at their site.
Music in this episode was licensed for True Crime XS by slip.fm. The song is “No Scars”.
You can reach us at our website truecrimexs.com and you can leave us a voice message at 252-365-5593. Find us most anywhere with @truecrimexs
Thanks for listening. Please like and subscribe if you want to hear more and you can come over to patreon.com/truecrimexs and check out what we’ve got going on there if you’d like to donate to fund future True Crime XS road trip investigations and FOIA requests. We also have some merchandise up at Teepublic http://tee.pub/lic/mZUXW1MOYxM
Sources:
Various News Sources Mentioned by Name
https://zencastr.com/?via=truecrimexs
https://www.chicagomag.com/chicago-magazine/june-2015/chicago-crime-stats/
https://footprintsattheriversedge.blogspot.com
https://fstoppers.com/education/biggest-dangers-photographers-face-299728#comment-thread
Transcript
00:00:00
Speaker
The content you're about to hear may be graphic in nature. Listener discretion is advised.
00:00:59
Speaker
If all goes as planned, we were talking about a missing person's case that may or may not have made the last episode. And for people wondering, like that case has piqued our interest to dig into it more. But I wanted to come back away from that for a minute. yeah It's the fall. We do have serial killers lined up. There were some interesting things that happened with regards to the death penalty this year.
00:01:26
Speaker
And it's not that we didn't cover them. Some of them we didn't really know how to cover, ah particularly there was this huge outcry related to Marcellus Williams execution out of Missouri. He was executed. ah I'll be very honest.
00:01:45
Speaker
I don't know that I believe in him being executed, but I never had any question about his innocence. There was a moment where the media and some of the innocence industry folks really wanted me to wonder, and I think they wanted the audience they had to wonder about Marcellus Williams being guilty or not of the murder of Felicia Gale. I did not wonder. um The DNA tests that were kind of bandied about and then not talked about in my opinion, did not, they did not push me one way or the other as to his guilt. I felt like he was guilty. I felt like the evidence was there that he was guilty. I know that like the family was very angry towards the end of that. You made the observation while you and I were just kind of talking about that case, that a lot of people were being executed and we've had questions about death penalty cases and certainly
00:02:43
Speaker
If you don't have questions about death penalty cases as um you know somebody who's listening, you're gonna have some, once you listen to some of the holiday episodes we're putting out, because some very interesting stuff comes out in those episodes. I don't know that we're mature enough, I think is the word that I used. As a society. Yeah, as a society. I don't know that we should be using the death penalty anymore, except in rare instances.
00:03:08
Speaker
Well, and then who decides that, right? um I will say though that I understand the hype behind Marcellus Williams last minute. I understand what's happening there. However, like I know, I mean, i we actually watched it. He was executed and then like the page updated, right? yeah That he had been executed. It's very, it's very surreal.
00:03:35
Speaker
Yeah, it is. and ah But when they say like, did Missouri execute an innocent man, right? I feel like, in it and there's literally nothing anywhere except in the title with what's presented that would suggest that that's what happened. When you have those types of cases,
00:04:03
Speaker
that are front and center in the spotlight. He was executed. The ultimate argument being made there was that a juror had been dismissed because they were black. Yes. Okay. Well, you don't get to argue who doesn't decide your case, right? Right. um It was absolutely ridiculous. The DNA evidence was a non-starter for anything with regard to him. This case was certainly not like it went through the process. There were ample amounts of times for this, any injustice to be put right. right I don't have an issue with the fact that this man could have absolutely been in jail for the rest of his life.
00:04:50
Speaker
He has been executed now, but I'm saying the sinking feeling you get when you read like, did Missouri execute an innocent man? Well, that's not what happened here, but that's an awful prospect, isn't it? It's a completely awful prospect. I, you know, converting that guy sent us to life without parole if they wanted to keep rehashing it would have been a thing that I totally could have got behind. It was difficult for me to get behind the idea that he was innocent because I could look at it all and I can tell you that
00:05:24
Speaker
Things happened long after the trial that were questionable, but nothing happened at any point in time that made me actually question the evidence and the way it was presented at trial. And I question everything. That case was pretty open and closed. And to me, when you're arguing nonsense when it matters, like when you're trying to get whatever they're they're trying to get a stay or whatever,
00:05:53
Speaker
To me, that's very telling. Like that's when you want to argue the direct point. And that's just, ah that wasn't, there wasn't anything to argue. Right. And so, you know, there are some interesting things that happened with relation to Marcellus Williams' case that I felt like could have had a different outcome. And I'll say it this way.
00:06:18
Speaker
You know, everything in life comes with windows and times and opportunities. And depending on like how you're timing something, ah you can have a completely different outcome. Originally, the defense team for Marcellus Williams had the ear of Governor Eric Gregens. They could have argued before him, before he stepped down, because he ends up having a personal scandal and stepping down.
00:06:48
Speaker
They had his ear, they could have argued, just convert it to life without parole and let him serve his sentence, because a governor has the power to to grant that kind of clemency, and that would have given them more time. But ultimately, in my opinion, Marcellus Williams was guilty. He convinced people he wasn't guilty by his conversations, but not through the evidence. He had essentially killed his victim in a pretty heinous fashion, stabbing her 43 times. An argument was made that DNA on the murder weapon wasn't his, but the truth is he could make that argument because he wore gloves, everyone knew he wore gloves. and But the DNA itself that was on the weapon turned out to be people who handled the evidence post trial. Right, and it it has absolutely nothing to do with his gilder innocence.
00:07:41
Speaker
Yeah. So we have this unfortunate like position that you and I find ourselves in where we have to point out that one, he's guilty to, they have the opportunity to get his sentence converted and they chose to continue to argue he was completely innocent when they knew it was not going to go over. And they've lost that window that of time. And I do agree with the Missouri attorney general that Marcellus Williams was guilty.
00:08:07
Speaker
Sometimes that's not the case. We recently brought up the case of Robert Robertson. And I personally have believed for a while that chicken baby syndrome is bunk. And I do believe the possibility for Texas to execute an innocent man is going to present itself. In fact, by the time we record this, I may have to come back in and drop a note right here that they did execute someone in a situation where I firmly believe there was no crime.
00:08:38
Speaker
I don't know what the holdup is here. um I feel like they won't do it until it's stayed, right? So that would be like right before it happens. right But I do keep checking that because I'm waiting to see there and I'm going to be really disappointed, ah which is such a like non-issue type thing to say, given the gravity of what we're talking about.
00:09:04
Speaker
Right. Uh, but what, you know, I've said before, like, I don't have, I never had a stance on the death penalty because it's like, it's so far out there and, and apart from, it is something I could feel passionately about one way or the other, but it's just so far removed from everything in my life. Like, what could I possibly do? This is one of the cases that illustrates that, but I do find myself looking and thinking like,
00:09:32
Speaker
I hope the right person's gonna put this in front of the right person and the right thing's gonna happen. And I hope that the governor of Texas is you know paying attention to what's going on and doesn't just you know sign a stack of papers that day, which includes the death warrant, right? yeah And not paying attention to what he's doing. I hope that these matters are taken seriously. I guess we're gonna find out. i This wouldn't bother me, though, I think. Oh, it will. i mean i you know i did not like I did not personally like the idea that Marcellus Williams was executed. But I did not doubt that Marcellus Williams was guilty. With Robert Robertson, I do not believe he is guilty. And I think executing him would be executing an innocent man. So in my mind, the polar opposite cases
00:10:26
Speaker
Yeah, you're right. they They really are. I really do. I don't believe first. I believe that little girl died from complications of double pneumonia. i i think he I think it just happened that he didn't have a way to articulate what was happening, but he kept taking her to the doctor and he kept trying to fix it. That is not what happens in cases where children are genuinely Abused to the point of dying from an injury of it, right? I mean, I've seen a couple that kind of like Ordinarily good parents snap but this guy wasn't even that he didn't snap there wasn't any outside evidence even you have to go through in that one you have to really drill down into the court documents to see how biased they were against them from the beginning and I just didn't see that in the Marcellus Williams case I did see it in the Robert Robertson case and So today what I'm bringing up is another execution that we're on the brink of that has found its way back in front of the Supreme Court that this one's kind of a toss up for me. So I was going to talk to you about it here. I do want to um just sort of factually back up what I was saying. So according to the Internet,
00:11:35
Speaker
which is always right about everything. As of October 5th, 2024, 19 people have been executed in the United States this year. um In 2023, I believe the total number was 24. You're talking about backing up that they're executing a lot of people?
00:11:54
Speaker
Yeah, just kind of so making the statement tim because, you know, we have lulls in time, at least when it's not noticeable, right? There's different things that have, you know, we've had the issue with the lethal injection concoction problem. ah They brought back other types of executions based on that. Like we've had like, you know,
00:12:19
Speaker
On top of the fact that like it's the death penalty, there's been other complications that have made it other legal hurdles, right? but And I would say that, um and we have access to an internet that tracks everything.
00:12:37
Speaker
But it is even, I mean, it's not just one state. It's not, you know, it's all across the United States. It's a variety of situations happening. And so I just wanted to sort of back up that statement. To me, it just seems like we're inundated with um executions. It has felt like that. um A number of rulings over the years have presented times where there's lulls. Well, so interestingly, the case that I want to talk about today that I said was kind of a toss up. It has been a part of Supreme Court cases already, but the reason it's coming up today is it's back in front of the Supreme Court. So I'll just pull from CBS news to start this off and then we'll talk about it kind of as a whole.
00:13:23
Speaker
The headline from Melissa Quinn on October the 9th was, Supreme Court grapples with case of Richard Glossop, G-L-O-S-S-I-P, death row inmate who's had three last meals.
00:13:38
Speaker
The Supreme Court on Wednesday wrestled with a bid by Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossop to toss out his conviction and grant him a new trial, an effort that's bolstered by the state's Republican Attorney General, who has raised issues with prosecutors' actions and the proceedings. Arguments in the case known as Glossop v. Oklahoma come came nearly a decade after the defendant unsuccessfully challenged the state's method of execution and after the High Court has intervened to stop his execution twice before. Glossop, now 61, has faced nine execution dates in all and eaten his last meal three times.
00:14:17
Speaker
His most recent reprieve came last year when the Supreme Court agreed to block Glossop's death by lethal injection. Months later, the justices took up his bid for a new trial after Oklahoma's top law enforcement official argued the defendant's conviction and sentence should not stand.
00:14:36
Speaker
At oral arguments before the Supreme Court, lawyers for Attorney General Gentner Drummond and Glossop, both represented by former solicitors general, urged the justices to grant the defendant's bid for a new trial, arguing in part that his due process rights were violated. The court appointed an outside lawyer, Christopher Michelle, to argue in favor of upholding Glossop's conviction and descendants.
00:15:01
Speaker
Over the course of nearly two hours, the justices sparred with lawyers over whether information from prosecutors' notes about the key witness that was uncovered by the state would have been enough to impact the jury's guilty verdict rendered two decades ago, and whether the Supreme Court should even be deciding this case at all.
00:15:19
Speaker
Drummond, a Republican, has argued in court papers that evidence has been suppressed and revealed not only that prosecutor central witness against Gloss applied on the stand, but that they knowingly elicited his false testimony and failed to correct the record. Our system of justice places awesome powers and responsibilities in the hands of prosecutors. When those prosecutors themselves recognize they have overstepped, that judgment cannot be dismissed. It's just another litigation position. This is according to Drummond in his Supreme Court filing.
00:15:49
Speaker
Glossop was convicted in the 1997 killing of Barry Vantrice, the owner of the Oklahoma City Motel where he worked. He was found guilty in two different trials after his first conviction was overturned because of an effective assistance of counsel. In both trials, prosecutors relied on the testimony of his co-defendant, Justin Sneed.
00:16:08
Speaker
who claimed Glosset paid him $10,000 to murder Ventrice. Sneed admitted to robbing and bludgeoning Ventrice and was sentenced to life in prison. Glosset has denied involvement in the murder and maintained his innocence. During his second trial, Sneed told the lead prosecutor that he had never seen a psychiatrist but was given lithium after he was arrested.
00:16:30
Speaker
Many years later, in 2022, the state unearthed handwritten notes from the prosecutor in a banker's box, which Drummond said called the called into question Snead's credibility as a witness. The notes indicated that Snead told the prosecutor he was given lithium after seeing a jailhouse psychiatrist and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, according to court papers, but neither his diagnosis nor treatment by the psychiatrist were disclosed to Glossop's defense team.
00:16:58
Speaker
including that the prosecutor elicited false testimony on the matter. In light of the findings, the attorney general disclosed the box's materials to Glossom and hired an independent counsel to review the case. The examination, which concluded in April of 2023, found that if the defense knew that Snead had been just diagnosed as bipolar and prescribed lithium, they could have impeached Snead's credibility, memory, and truthfulness. The independent counsel concluded,
00:17:26
Speaker
that Glossop had been deprived of the fair trial. The state agreed that some of the errors committed during the trial rendered Glossop's conviction and capital's sentence flawed, and they requested the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals set aside its conviction and order a new trial. But the state's court denied the relief and ordered the state to execute Glossop.
00:17:46
Speaker
A request for clemency to the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board also failed. Glossop turned to the Supreme Court, which in May 2023 granted the stay of his execution, and in January agreed to take up his case. Justice Neil Gorsuch has recused himself, likely because of earlier proceedings when he was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
00:18:08
Speaker
If the Supreme Court deadlocks 4-4, the Oklahoma Court of Appeals' decision upholding Glossop's death sentence would stand. Much of the discussion before the justices focused on whether they should be hearing the case at all or whether the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to do so because the Oklahoma Court of Appeals based its decision denying Glossop relief on adequate and independent state law grounds.
00:18:33
Speaker
Michelle, a former clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, told the justices that the state court correctly rejected Glossop's claims. Justice Samuel Alito appeared skeptical of the idea that the case raised an issue of federal law for the Supreme Court to ultimately decide.
00:18:51
Speaker
Justice Clarence Thomas repeatedly questioned lawyers for both sides about the prosecutor's notes from a discussion with Sneed and whether they were ever interviewed about what they meant in referencing lithium or Dr. Trumpet, a misidentification of jailhouse psychiatrist Dr. Lawrence Trumka.
00:19:11
Speaker
Thomas told Seth Waxman, who argued on behalf of Glossop, that an interview with the two prosecutors to discern the context of their notes would be central and lamented that their reputations are being impugned.
00:19:23
Speaker
I couldn't make heads or tails of the notes. He said, noting that one of the prosecutors had explained they were about a conversation that Sneed had with the defense. If that is the case, Thomas said, I don't see how there's any basis for federal law violations governing criminal proceedings and the disclosure of evidence. Why wouldn't they be interviewed? Thomas asked Paul Clement, who argued for Drummond. We don't even have materials from them except the friend of the court brief from van Treese's family.
00:19:53
Speaker
In that filing, Van Tries' wife, son, and sister contested the notion that the prosecution had concealed information from the defense. Instead, they said prosecutors' notes reflect Sneed recounting what the defense team had asked him.
00:20:07
Speaker
Alito also highlighted the brief from Ventre's family, saying it provided them a pretty compelling counter reading to Glossop and Drummond's interpretation of the prosecutor's notes. Several of the justices pressed lawyers for both sides about the value of the information from Snead's bipolar diagnosis by the psychiatrist and his treatment with lithium and how that may have impacted the jury's view of the case. Do you really think it would have made that much of a difference to a jury? Roberts asked.
00:20:36
Speaker
Kavanaugh asked Clement to explain how the outcome of Colossus trial would have been different. Later, he told Michelle he was struggling with his argument that it wouldn't have mattered to the jury had they known that Snead was bipolar and lied on the stand. I'm having some trouble in that last piece of the argument. If we get there,
00:20:53
Speaker
understanding that when the whole case, depending on his credibility, would it have made the conviction more likely if the jury knows not only that he has an incentive to lie and that he's lied on the stand and that he's bipolar, therefore creating all sorts of avenues for questioning his credibility? Justice Kagan told Michelle, your one witness has been exposed as a liar. The critical question that a jury is asking is, do I believe this guy in everything he says? And particularly, do I believe him when he points a finger at the accused?
00:21:24
Speaker
Waxman told the justices that Glossop was convicted on the word of one man, while Clement called Snead an indispensable witness for the state. Justice Kajani Brown Jackson suggested additional proceedings be held given the pretty significant factual questions that are still up for debate. Neither side, though, favors any type of evidentiary hearing. The case has divided state attorneys general and local and federal prosecutors. In one filing with the Supreme Court, attorneys general from seven states are calling for Glossop's conviction to be upheld. They said the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals
00:21:59
Speaker
The state's court of last resort for criminal matters based its ruling on state law and should be respected by the federal courts. But the group of prosecutors is calling on the Supreme Court to grant Klassen relief, arguing that he is at imminent risk of being wrongfully executed. Prosecutions must be premised upon an honest and completely transparent record.
00:22:21
Speaker
to protect societal confidence in the death sentence. This was said in a filing in support of Glossop. A decision in the case is expected by June of 2025. A lot of information there. So first of all, let me just say that I've had some doubts on this case. I don't know if they're quite as strong as what's going on here. Have you read about this case at this point? Do you have the opinions on it or opinion on what I just read?
00:22:49
Speaker
but Yeah, I've got I've got opinions on it. So the background of the case is that the victim and the two perpetrators, they all work together, right? Yeah. Okay. And that there was that glass up paid $10,000 murder or execution or whatever he was beat to death of a baseball bat, right? Correct. Okay.
00:23:17
Speaker
The victim's name is Barry Vantrice. Yes. And he owned the hotel that they, or the motel that they worked on, right? for Sneed was the maintenance man. Glossop was the manager. The victim Vantrice was the owner. Okay. And so if, for one thing, I have never seen information following the money. Talking about all these executions, that was one of the first things I did.
00:23:46
Speaker
I will note that I have not found it. I've started going through the oldest of the court records to see how it's mentioned and how the money comes up, but I will say it is curiously ignored in a lot of the later filings. Well, because we're looking at a very Like, even what you were just recounting that the Supreme Court is talking about, which they're talking about attorney generals fighting for it to be upheld while prosecutors are are saying, no, it you know there's doubt here, right? it's It's like this whole upheaval of everything we know, right? I mean, really, if you think about it.
00:24:34
Speaker
I think the attorney general doesn't get on board if they had it lock stock and barrel, the $10,000 change hands and they were able to trace it. And you got to remember this. The attorney generals are saying that it needs to be upheld. No, no, from the different States, but the person who drummed the man who's he is the attorney general of Oklahoma. Right? You're right. no time If he could look through here and say to himself,
00:25:01
Speaker
I understand where the money went and changed hands and he felt confident on it, then that independent review that he had them come in and do for the conviction, it doesn't stand if he finds how the money changed hands. This took place on January 7th of 1997 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. $10,000 being given from the manager of a of a best budget in to his maintenance guy would have stood out like a sore thumb.
00:25:31
Speaker
No kidding. And it's now granted. Okay, so the allegation here is that ah Justin Sneed testified that he was paid by Glossop, by Richard Eugene Glossop, to kill Barry Van Tree. He is saying that the orchestration was by Glossop. Okay, we don't know like what this what would have motivated this to happen.
00:25:59
Speaker
Okay. but the So in other words, he's not participating in the murder. Okay. Justin Sneed is the one that's actually using the bat to beat Barry Ventress to death. Yeah.
00:26:18
Speaker
And he's saying the reason he did it was because his manager, Richard Eugene Glossop, paid him money and said, I want you to kill the owner of the establishment we work for. I don't know what the specifications were. There's not a lot of detail in what the evidence presented was.
00:26:41
Speaker
um I do feel like $10,000 would have been very easily traceable in this situation, not to mention like why, why did they want this to happen, right? So those things are sort of up in the air. They aren't even touched on by the higher courts for whatever reason. So that makes me think either they're overlooked or they're irrelevant. I don't see how they could possibly be irrelevant. However,
00:27:12
Speaker
What we do have is a situation where Sneed confessed to avoid the death penalty. That's where we start in the wrong direction, in my opinion. He he actually committed the murder, right? Correct. um I long had issues with the person who doesn't actually commit the murder being put to death, I feel like you know there's a lot of circumstances where you could implicate someone.
00:27:47
Speaker
Because to me it would make much more sense that in this particular case, Justin Sneet got angry at the owner of the establishment and beat him to death in a fit of rage. Then it would make sense that his manager paid him $10,000 to beat the owner of the establishment they both worked at. And so to me that it seems like it's always going to be questionable when you've got somebody you know pulling the trigger, so to speak, and then implicating someone else to their own benefit. I assume there was enough evidence to, beyond Sneet's confession, to...
00:28:30
Speaker
There's not, okay, that's the thing about this that makes it weird. One of the things that happens with this, I mentioned the ineffective assistance of counsel, and I'm just going to throw this part in and you can make of it what you will. The reason there's ineffective assistance of counsel is that if you go read the appellate documents on this, and I'll tell you right now, this case has created more paperwork than any case I've ever seen in the history of cases.
00:28:53
Speaker
There's so much of it. But on Google Scholar, they have a 2001 appeal document where you can read about this part. The ineffective assistance of counsel eventually comes out of the fact that what Justin Snead testified to at trial, which was lengthy, versus what was on the detective's videotape of the initial conversations with Justin Snead, January 14, 1997, varied wildly.
00:29:20
Speaker
they don't even make sense together or apart. And these inconsistencies were not addressed by defense counsel. The judge actually talked the defense counsel out of using the confession of Justin Snead to impeach the detective and Justin Snead because they the judge basically said, well, if it comes in, the prosecution can also use it to further note what Snead is saying about your client.
00:29:47
Speaker
And that was one of the first of many errors that are made in this case. I was going to say he was convicted anyway. What does it matter? Right. But I'm just saying that it was one of the things that's brought up. And if you go do a deep dive on this case, it is disturbing how little evidence has been created related to this case. So for all we know, is somebody completely different? Yeah.
00:30:17
Speaker
Okay, well, again, what has been argued at the, what the Supreme Court was questioning was, is it relevant that this dude has seen a psychiatrist and he was diagnosed as bipolar?
00:30:36
Speaker
and seeing a psychiatrist and taking lithium when previously yeah the defense counsel was not notified of that. And he had actually said, I've never seen a psychiatrist, which would imply he's not taking psychiatric medicine, I guess. That's what they're arguing. Okay. And and what what does that matter? Well, I tell you what, it matters. Somebody that is bipolar and not medicated until after they're in custody,
00:31:06
Speaker
I could have fits of rage. Beating someone to death with a baseball bat ah is a heinous crime. Well, this is a fascinating one for me because, okay, you and I talk about jailhouse snitches and informants all the time. and And generally, we look at prosecutors using those jailhouse snitches and informants very dubiously. Would that be accurate?
00:31:33
Speaker
Yeah, i I look at it that way. I feel like they're always looking to get something out of it. So one of the reasons this case originally caught my attention back in, I think it was 2015, I came across a bunch of articles that if you go read their, their local to Oklahoma city, I don't know that they got super far out there, but
00:31:55
Speaker
Justin Sneed had told his cellmate that he killed Ventrice all by his lonesome and gave very detailed ah descriptions of every lie he's told and everything he's done. It actually made him come across as sort of a conniving jerk on top of being a manipulative murderer.
00:32:17
Speaker
When he did that, the prosecution then came out and argued that you can't trust jailhouse informants. And I about lost my mind because so many prosecutions are built using jailhouse snitches that are a at best dubious, at worst, just flat out false.
00:32:46
Speaker
And when I sat down and like looked through it all, the affidavits they had being sort of ridiculed by the prosecutors at the time made me think that they knew it was BS. I don't wanna belittle the murder of Barry Ventrice either. Like that's a very serious thing in all of this.
00:33:13
Speaker
Well, right, and it certainly should be adjudicated properly. And I'm assuming I didn't, I don't, this this case is so far back. To me, what's brought up is it leads me to believe that I'm not sure why they're arguing what they're arguing. From what I can see, I don't feel like it mattered if the defense knew this guy had a psychiatric issue as much as like um it,
00:33:41
Speaker
could very well be the case that Glossop is actually innocent. Yeah, it could be the case, from everything I've read, Glossop could have actually just been someone that Justin Sneed also didn't like. Well, because he was there, right? Like, I mean, he's he's a pig. Because when you're constructing something, right, it's got to make at least a little bit of sense, right? Yeah.
00:34:10
Speaker
And so if if you're constructing it, it's gotta be somebody that like fits in the picture and that's the case here, right? um i have I've heard no motive and and because of the experience I have with the research in these types of cases, it happens to come up here because you know the death penalty execution date looming, it's not set right now. No, it would be sometime next year.
00:34:37
Speaker
Right, but so it comes up, but like I happen to have it in the back of my mind when I see these like weird cases where like if he paid him $10,000. There's a record of that. There's evidence of that. They're going to see that. You have to report that like to the IRS, right? I mean, yeah pulling out $10,000. If you're wanting me to believe that the manager at the motel had $10,000 cash stashed somewhere that he then gave to the
00:35:10
Speaker
bipolar maintenance man who like took the cash and also stashed it somewhere and there was no record of any of that transaction anywhere, right? He didn't suddenly lose $10,000 and the other guy didn't suddenly gain $10,000. Like that's ah hard to believe, right? well So the other thing about this case is there was a lot of subterfuge in the very first trial. If you go back through and find, if you're able to find the transcripts and they do exist,
00:35:38
Speaker
on Justia, Case Text Google Scholar. They are old and they're at the beginning of things, so you have to go way back. The whole reason that Mr. Ventrice was at the motel was he was going through to figure out if someone had been stealing from the motel. He was literally auditing his motels because he felt like they were short money. So at the trial, there's all this testimony about missing receipts and possibly missing money that when you read it, it kind of like lens toward, okay, there's some guilty people here. Like could somebody have been stealing here? Absolutely. But if you go and read it, it's wild. The numbers they do come up with because they clearly knew
00:36:26
Speaker
what each person was making at trial. And they're able to say that like Justin Snead was paid $1,500 a month and he got two paychecks. They're able to go through and point all of those things out. And it kind of sounds like they're leading somewhere, except that to me would make $10,000 stand out more, not less. And the shortages they came up with in terms of like, what could have possibly been stolen from the different motels didn't amount to, but about five or $6,000. And it is basically pointed out that it's not enough to cover the $10,000 shortfall. And you've got a guy making $1,500 a month. Now,
00:37:13
Speaker
There is testimony from Sneed that he took Vantrese's car keys and took his car at one point and that when he went to his car, he found an envelope full of cash. So Sneed is found originally to have like a stack of cash.
00:37:32
Speaker
But in his possession, they never come up with $10,000. They find that he stole roughly $4,000 from Barry Ventre's and they find that the more you whittle away at that number, depending on which trial you're at and which testimony you believe, they don't come up with enough cash for Glossop to have ever done it.
00:37:56
Speaker
So I just wanted to throw that out there, that that's a that's a big hook in all of this is, Barry Ventress was only at the motel to audit it. Well, right. And so to me, like this whole thing is caught up on things that don't matter because there's actual innocence involved. And like looking it's very interesting to see the different perspectives that come up with the what is being discussed. You've got to focus on something, right? yeah And in the focus, perhaps they're focusing on the wrong thing. It doesn't really make sense
00:38:31
Speaker
you know if it's he hired me for a hit or whatever I don't know how they say that it was a murder for hire so to speak yeah except it has to like he paid me more than he stole right to cover because he would be he would have the idea would be that they didn't want the owner to find out they were stealing and so he hired a murder for hire situation, except if you've only stolen $4,000, why would you pay somebody $10,000 to kill the person you don't want to find out? It's starting to fall apart. When all that stuff is falling apart, that should be part of the focus, in my opinion. Now, I i guess they're saying you know the evidence was presented, a jury decided. I think the mileage on that could vary widely. It might be the case that the evidence being presented
00:39:23
Speaker
was construed perhaps the opposite way it was intended to or not intended, but it was construed by a jury to be the opposite of what was actually being presented. Because anybody making $1,500 a month that doesn't have $10,000 to pay, ah nor that's really not even enough. I mean, the guy had was giving them jobs.
00:39:51
Speaker
That's the other thing that is weird. I feel like it was not concocted. It was a fit of rage. Sneed, did he, he had a drug habit, did he not? Oh yeah, so what comes up in the course of all of this? Like if if you go, I think there's a wiki on this. I'm going to say that because I'm pretty sure this case is renowned enough um that there would be wiki notes. So,
00:40:18
Speaker
Early on and over the years after, Richard Glossop's legal team have asserted that Justin Sneed had a meth habit. At the time that he killed him while he was working there, they said that he had been caught multiple times breaking into vehicles in the parking lot of this hotel where he was employed to work as the maintenance guy.
00:40:41
Speaker
so The evidence they present outside Justin's need, they used to bolster Justin's need. It's a lot of like statements that Glossop had made at random points in time before and after the crime that seemed to indicate like some level of like sinister nature when they could just be taken as kind of dark humor.
00:41:01
Speaker
The idea was Justin Sneed was a sneaky dude who was an addict who was used to figuring out how to get extra cash to get its fix. And that a lot of the terrible things he was doing in his life just kind of extended over to Richard Glossop and he just made him a part of a story. This case is a case where, okay, look, I've been sitting in court and watch someone I was pretty sure wasn't guilty, be convicted. I've also been sitting in court and watched multiple people plead out to avoid like dealing with something. Justin Snead's plea in this is self-serving. If not for him testifying against Richard Glossop, Justin Snead ends up on trial with the possibility of being convicted of this murder and being sentenced to death.
00:41:59
Speaker
Well, I know, which is exactly why you would immediately seek to throw someone under the bus. Yeah. Perhaps even somebody that like didn't have much to do with it. Again, I i find it Very odd because now you said Justin's need is self-serving, which is true, especially like if you consider him taking the brunt of the charges ah without a co-conspirator or a ah mastermind, right? Yeah. However, it can also be conveyed in a sense of implicating oneself is you're not going to lie
00:42:45
Speaker
about somebody else's involvement while implicating yourself, right? Right. And if that's not stressed appropriately, and the timing of all of this is also something to take into consideration, because we're talking about, what, 1998? 97, 98, yeah. So it's it's a different world as far as like what a murder trial is actually like, right?
00:43:15
Speaker
yeah um with regard to the inferences that are being drawn by the jury, like what um expectations are.
00:43:28
Speaker
what uh because you know we've had a lot of social justice type influence on the judicial system right we we have i okay just so i'm not like getting too far afield of all of this because i think i know where you're going but i could be wrong i want to give you a quote from the oklahoma court of criminal appeals in 2001 okay so this murder happens in 97 he's convicted in 98 It's 2001 when we get to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. In their first look at this, they throw it out for unconstitutionally ah ineffective assistance of counsel. But this is a comment they have that a lot of people overlook. The evidence at trial tending to corroborate Snead's testimony is extremely weak.
00:44:16
Speaker
We recognize that a conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it is corroborated by such other evidence as tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. And the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely show the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof. That's an extremely important set of sentences. That don't seem to matter at all in the retrial. It doesn't seem to matter at all in the retrial.
00:44:46
Speaker
At that point, one of the things that comes up when we get around to a second jury trial in August of 2004 is the original defense attorneys quit. According to gloss up, he makes a complaint later that comes up in a different opinion that prosecutors had it intimidated his defense attorney into resigning his case.
00:45:11
Speaker
Well, no kidding. Cause they're pushing for a plea deal. That's, that's sort of the point here. Like, okay. If, if it were the case, why wouldn't he have taken a plea for life in prison? That's a good question. Well, because he's, he was arguing innocence, right? I mean, if you think about it and obviously any, you can't bring up any sort of plea situation with regard to the defendant during their trial. It could come up that you know the witness testifying was granted ah whatever, right right? It could come up that there was it some sort of um you know quid pro quo as far as how the testimony is getting there. I don't really know the implications of how far you can go with that, but if
00:46:10
Speaker
The argument that the prosecutors ah bullied the defense, her I can see, I can absolutely see that happening, no quite, especially the late 90s, absolutely. um Prosecutors trying to get this concocted case through the process and done with, um I'm sure they probably offered him life in prison without the possibility of parole to plead guilty to these charges. so right um There are certain things that will happen in the course of a prosecution ah that a short-sighted investigation,
00:46:53
Speaker
once it's to a certain point, because at a certain point, they've already they've made a plea deal with Sneed, right? Correct.
00:47:05
Speaker
I'll tell you, very early they make this play deal. ah Right. And within he confesses, right? Yeah. And so, okay, what happens if he has to recant his confession? Because that's what he would have to do in order for it to not fall on Glossop. Correct.
00:47:27
Speaker
It would have to be a completely different situation, because if Glassup isn't paying him and orchestrating this, why is he doing it? Right? It's a whole different thing. right ah Then why wouldn't they seek the death penalty for him? You see where the implications of the like the bigger picture here come into play, and it's not like they can just take it back.
00:47:48
Speaker
Oh, i I agree. Yeah. So I still am not entirely certain why the argument is what it is. I don't know. I'm i'm unfamiliar with some of the positions that appear to be ah being taken here. However, I feel like it I don't know if that it should be the Supreme Court. I feel like we talked about this. um It seems like recently where Like sometimes things occur and it's like, wait, what, right? And the courts really legitimately don't know what to do with cases. um In this particular case, it I don't see where they're relying on anything besides the accomplices testimony.
00:48:39
Speaker
It was not even the accomplice. Can we just say, can we, can you and I just say that here? This would at best, this is a co-conspirator. If everything he says is true, he is not an accomplice. He is a murderer. He's the perpetrator. And I have a feeling he probably acted ah alone. I think he did.
00:48:57
Speaker
And it is insane that it got so far out of hand. But i I understand most of what's going on there, I think. And you know I don't even know like what can happen. i don't know I know the Supreme Court has to stop. I would say they have to stop the execution. The reason I say that is because lacking some other sort of independently verifiable information, you're relying on the testimony of a liar yeah to put a man to death. yep and i I don't see how they can let that go. Well, so here's kind of my sort of final takes on this and I'll lead you into this conversation, see what you think. One of the reasons we're not mature enough as a civilization or a society to deal with a death penalty
00:49:55
Speaker
is because one of the things we're learning with, for instance, the case of Marcellus Williams versus Robert Roberson and Richard Glossop is appellate courts are really only designed for errors. And we've talked about this at length. You and I have gone over a number of different cases over the years.
00:50:17
Speaker
where we dig and dig and dig because we are looking for errors. But what the system can't do is if the jury and the judge make mistakes in a case, which clearly they made mistakes enough in the first trial that we get a second trial out of this, that is essentially a rehash of the first trial.
00:50:38
Speaker
We definitely have some information that was maybe held back, but it's not really enough information that's getting the court's attention. But we don't have a mechanism in place in a catastrophic situation like this where we have this man who, by all accounts, should have been executed by now because of the way the system works. We are literally letting him hang on to a thread of life through error, like we're going and finding errors. And it has nothing to do with the ultimate merits merits of this case, which let's face it, if we were to look around the country and just look at different jurisdictions for whatever reasons, different reasons in some areas than others, there are truly places in this country who while we may not be mature enough as a society,
00:51:35
Speaker
to employ the death penalty in an adequate manner that we could be sure we were employing it correctly. There are jurisdictions in this country that really should not have juries picked from their pool.
00:51:49
Speaker
Oh, I think that might have gone too far.
00:51:56
Speaker
goodness You're not wrong. just say like don't beautiful I have been places where once the jury is picked and I see the makeup of them, I'm like, all right, let's see what happens. And then depending on where you are and how your court works and what the local rules are and who the judge is, some juries can ask questions.
00:52:19
Speaker
They can, yeah. And juries will give away a lot about the questions that they're asking. Sometimes juries are right there with you, man. They're watching it. They're hanging on every detail. And when this trial goes down, whatever they decide will have been well thought out by intelligent members of the community who want to see justice done. And sometime, Larry really wants to watch the Super Bowl.
00:52:47
Speaker
And he's not sure what's been said for the last couple of weeks, but he's ready to get out of there. And I'm not sure that Larry is capable of holding a vote on juries in certain trials. We definitely don't want him voting on the death penalty. Well, right. And I don't know where you came up with Larry, but um I feel like there's a lot of Larry's out there and I don't i don't feel like they do it to be like, I feel like they they're doing their civic duty to the best of their ability. I'm not i'm not criticizing them as a whole. I'm just saying we have.
00:53:30
Speaker
problems. And Larry, you said, you don't know where I came up with Larry. I was sitting in a courtroom one time watching the tail end of a jury trial because I was waiting on something else to happen. And the foreman said, Your Honor, Larry has a question. And it was something like, are we if we do the verdict now, are we still going to have lunch here? Yeah, something dumb, right something completely irrelevant to the situation. but Yes, yes, that's correct.
00:53:59
Speaker
i I feel like there's a lot there is a lot flawed with the situation. um i I don't disagree with the thought that everybody's not cut out to be on a jury. And ah I would say while preparing for a trial, it would be damn near impossible for a team of attorneys to be able to, you know, decipher that.
00:54:26
Speaker
out of a pool of potential jurors. yeah ah wait cause you know thats Even that is adversarial because you get to cut some and they get to cut some. and like you you know It's a whole thing and there's so much going on there.
00:54:45
Speaker
that it it can get out of control really fast. And I could see why Larry ends up on the jury, even though you know he secretly really doesn't want to be there. Or maybe not even secretly. Maybe he said it out loud.
00:55:03
Speaker
Well, he just wasn't smart enough to get out of jury duty. That's all. Well, you know what? um So that has come up. I feel like that is a terrible thing to say if you are called to be on a jury, which I mean, obviously people in my own life would disagree with this. My husband, he has no interest in ever being a juror. I would go, i I have no problem with it. I'm happy to show up and I'm happy to deliver justice if possible.
00:55:32
Speaker
here's Here's my my final thoughts on this and then a question.
00:55:40
Speaker
We got a maintenance guy who's working for a free room and whatever little paycheck he had. By all accounts, he's probably been taking stuff out of rooms and cars in the parking lot, or it's a possibility. Is that the guy that like when you want to kill your boss,
00:56:02
Speaker
you think is the ultimate like kind of fall guy or stool pigeon? Or is that the guy that maybe you don't ask to do a whole lot of anything ever, except whatever his job is, and you avoid him and try and get rid of him when you can when he finally you know pisses off the wrong customer and steals something out of their car? And do you think that Richard Gloss have asked, or told, or cajoled, or offered money to Justin Sneed to kill Barry Ventress. I don't. Yeah, I don't either.
00:56:44
Speaker
i And and i I say that for a lot of reasons, ah not the least of which is he beat him to death with a baseball bat, which is a weapon of opportunity that you use in a fit of rage or like in stark self-defense when you don't have a gun. yeah And it's not something that you have a,
00:57:11
Speaker
ah a murder for hire planned out situation, that's what you're gonna use? I mean, think of how much work it takes to beat someone to death with a baseball bat. I just, I don't think that that's the case. I don't think he paid anybody. I don't think that he, I i feel like it would be really short-sighted for them to think that they should kill their boss, the owner of the come the place where they work.
00:57:40
Speaker
yeah
00:57:42
Speaker
but That also sounds dumb to me, which could mean, I mean, I don't i don't think Richard Glossa ordered this murder. I don't think this was a murder that was ordered. I could be convinced otherwise if something stronger than what they presented in this original, meaning the first trial. I just need to know what the information is, right? Yeah, I mean, there you can if people want to read up on this, there's lots of these papers on the internet. You've got to go all the way back, in my opinion, to 2001 and read about the 1998 trial.
00:58:15
Speaker
If you don't do that, you're really kind of missing out. The prosecution strings together a bunch of statements where it makes it appear Richard Glossop was trying to steer people away from the room that Barry Ventreese's body was in and he said there was a broken window in there and that somebody was going to have to go and clean it up. They make it seem like when he says clean it up, they're like he was referencing Justin Snead having to go in there and clean up the body of Barry Ventreese.
00:58:43
Speaker
If that's accurate and like that's really what he was saying, maybe we go down that path and he had something to do with this. That is a statement that he made at the time to his girlfriend and to some other people sort of loosely affiliated with the motel in this case. I don't find it to be strong enough to put him to death.
00:59:03
Speaker
No, I was going to say, if that's what he said, if he was somehow covering up something that had already occurred, um, I still don't find that enough. I mean, there could be another charge in there. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Also in the event that it was not a commodity for the, uh, actual physical murderer,
00:59:28
Speaker
like the fact that he's, it's because essentially he treated a life sentence to put the other guy to death, right? That's what's happening wrong here. And so the commodity part of it is ah unacceptable to me just based on just without they're just there's not enough evidence here um i you know if he it is a completely different story to show up for your managerial position realize that your maintenance man who loses his mind occasionally has beat the owner to death
01:00:06
Speaker
and try and sort what you need to do next without involving a bunch of other people. Absolutely. Okay, which is, if that is what came up, I can imagine that still having, now, and I'm not saying that he shouldn't, you know, face whatever comes along with the punishment for doing something like that is, but you know, show it, you know, there could be a fear that he would beat somebody else to death.
01:00:38
Speaker
that anybody that got involved in the situation would be in imminent danger. You said it was his girlfriend and some other people. yeah So we don't know all the circumstances. It is possible that there was some sort of, you know, if he realized what happened and he was trying to protect more people from getting hurt or if he was just trying to you know figure out what to do. Because the last thing you want to do is like involve a whole bunch of people in something like that, right? Correct. But in hindsight, that might have been the better option. And who knows, right? like who I don't know what the situation was. It doesn't seem like I know that he didn't give the situation, right? Correct.
01:01:22
Speaker
And then the people, I like how the jailhouse snitches are fair weather friends, right? Yeah. Well, i you know this is an interesting one. There's some time before they hear on it. I will probably come back once they hear on it, and I will have done a lot more ah deep dive here that we can put together something related to all of this.
01:01:43
Speaker
So what the outcome here can be is the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to remand it for a new trial based on the fact that um correct it there was evidence withheld, right? So that's where it's gonna go. It's not like they can do anything besides that. And so they'll send it back with a, and for the lower court to find a ah new ruling not inconsistent with what they've said. So it's not like they're going to make the determination on, I don't think. They're not doing innocence or guilt here.
01:02:24
Speaker
They could they can do something interesting and like find they have jurisdiction and and a reason to kick it all like I mean honestly like the Supreme Court if they wanted to in a situation like this could look at this situation and be like Clearly this area in Oklahoma does not have the jurors the defense attorneys of the prosecutors to carry off a case like this Therefore we are invalidating this but that has like things that the Supreme Court does it has it sets precedent and it has A ripple effect which ultimately results in consequences on this ruling standing so they have to rule in a way that like. Applies to everywhere in the united states if they're gonna decide there is standing here for them to rule on this case.
01:03:13
Speaker
And I'm so close to having like an analogy that I just, I don't think I'm quite there yet, but it has to do with like trying to turn a boat around like with, you know, you got the nine Supreme Court justices sitting in a canoe and they're trying to turn it around without rocking the boat, right? Because that's what's happening here.
01:03:31
Speaker
um they're They're trying to turn this thing around. You can tell just from their questioning that, you know, they're the it's concerning, right? It's very concerning. It should be concerning to everyone because of the nature of all the things we talked about in this case. But, um you know, to the what will they do to the extent that they know that they should act being the Supreme Court versus the extent that like what you said you know There's not the the infrastructure here to handle this type of thing. And like what happens from there? you know I don't know about you, but I know um I filled out my ballot recently. And most of the judicial seats on in the local court where I live were completely uncontested. Yep.
01:04:21
Speaker
and What does that mean? You either vote for the person or you don't, but that's probably who's going to be on the bench and hopefully all the positions are filled, right? Yeah. And, you know, that says something to me.
01:04:42
Speaker
This is interesting because I got a question about a week ago where somebody was asking what we saw of this case and and in the email and I We had already covered it. We had already started recording it, because we were leaning up to leading up to Robert Robertson, whether he was going to be executed or not. And he ends up getting a stay. um what They were asking me about this case, and I know they're anticipating someone else covering it. I don't know who that is, but I can say that. Look, prosecutors, without being corrupt, they are ultimately tingling at something. Defense attorneys, without being corrupt, are ultimately angling at something. Usually, they're at odds with each other. This case is weird because there are people on both sides of this
01:05:34
Speaker
that agree something was wrong here. If you go and read Glossop's case very carefully, there's a lot of circumstantial stuff that makes them look strange. That's why I say I have doubts about this case. um The truth is, when you've got a couple of mentally ill people doing menial jobs and and whatnot, who are the basis for the bulk of your ah cut some money And I'll let you decide who is and isn't really healing these trial transcripts that they have here. You can't execute somebody based on that. You want to find them guilty? Give them life in prison? That's a different ballgame. And i think I think one of the things that we said is that there's a jurisdictional argument here, like state law.
01:06:14
Speaker
and It basically says there needs to be some kind of permanence and sentencing appeals and things like that. The problem is Oklahoma's misusing it. And if your attorney general is saying, like, okay, we need help from on high, that's because that's state law. like It has crossed the boundary and needs to be looked at. Ultimately, I think they'll declare it unconstitutional. And I know that people in the prosecution side would be like, no, but like that's what should happen if that should be declared unconstitutional. Put your circumstantial evidence together, your direct evidence together. But the truth is, these prosecutors write down all this chicken scratch anyways. And since attorneys do it too, but if you're writing down the chicken scratch,
01:07:01
Speaker
and then complaining that the chicken scratch is being used, like to angle the arguments, then will you also admit that you make chicken scratch so that if you do have to turn it in, no one can read it? Because how does that look? From either side? The fence side or the prosecution side? Special consideration was given to True Crime XS by LabratiCreations.com. If you have a moment in your favorite app, please go on and give us a review or a five-star rating.
01:07:32
Speaker
It helps us get noticed in the crowd. This is True Crime
01:08:26
Speaker
Crime XS is brought to you by John and Meg It's written, produced, edited, and posted by John and Meg. You can always support True Crime Access through patreon.com, or if you have a story you'd like them to cover, you can reach them at truecrimeaccess.com. Thank you for joining us.
01:08:46
Speaker
This is just a reminder that we are part of the Zincaster Creator Network. And I've put a link in the show notes if you guys want to check it out for your own podcasting needs. um I've always enjoyed using Zincaster. Their quality is great. And we we were able to join their Creator Network at kind of a key time in in their history. um I have enjoyed it. You know, I've considered a lot of other ah places to record and a lot of other ways to put together and host and distribute our podcasts. But I've stuck with Zincaster the longest. We've been with them for hundreds of episodes now. And I'm putting a link in the show notes where you can check out ah what they have to offer and see if it's something you would want to use.