The US Supreme Court intervened in 2025 to toss his conviction but he [remained in prison without bail.](https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/23/us/richard-glossip-bond-oklahoma) He had been scheduled for execution nine times and given his last meal three times only to have his execution stayed.
Article text:
> An Oklahoma District Court judge has issued a $500,000 bail for former death row inmate Richard Glossip, who has been incarcerated since his 1998 conviction in the murder-for-hire plot of his former boss, according to a bond ruling Thursday.
> “For the first time in 29 years of being incarcerated for a crime he did not commit, during which he faced 9 execution dates and ate 3 last meals, Mr. Glossip now has the chance to taste freedom,” said his attorney, Don Knight, in a statement.
> Glossip was convicted for his role in the 1997 killing of Barry Van Treese but the United States Supreme Court tossed his conviction and death sentence in February 2025. He was previously denied bail as he awaits a retrial.
> If he were to post bond, Glossip would have a GPS ankle monitor and adhere to a 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew. He’s also not allowed to have contact with any witnesses, according to court records.
111
Workingdad_831 day ago
+101
For them to stay his execution that many times. It seems like he for real didn’t do it. I am not familiar with the case, but Texas fries people as often as they can. This is kinda insane.
101
NewButOld8523 hr ago
+168
> I am not familiar with the case, but Texas fries people as often as they can.
This is in Oklahoma, not Texas. And while the conviction was overturned, Oklahoma still plans to retry him, although they're aiming for a life sentence, not the death penalty.
According to the article, the **only** evidence of Glossip's involvement was the testimony of the guy who actually committed the murder, which he gave in exchange for having his own sentence reduced from death to life in prison. Glossip refused a plea deal which would give him life in prison, which is why they punished him with a death sentence when he was found guilty. The conviction was overturned first on appeal in 2004 due to receiving bad counsel (but he was retried and found guilty again), and then by the Supreme Court last year because they found the state had withheld evidence that the killer had a history of lying under oath and had previously been treated for bipolar disorder.
168
Neuromangoman22 hr ago
+79
How the f*** was he convicted only based on a single guy's testimony, let alone the actual murderer's? Like, how does that prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the eyes of the court?
79
NewButOld8521 hr ago
+56
Get a jury of "average joes" who default to believing authority figures, and they'll very often nod along when the prosecutor says "He did it." Especially when you're given bad counsel (why his first conviction was overturned) or when the state withholds key evidence that discredits the testimony they're relying on to claim he did it (why his second conviction was overturned).
The world's changed a lot since the last trial, so maybe it'll be different this time. I sure hope so.
56
Neuromangoman21 hr ago
+22
Yeah, I read about the bad counsel and withheld evidence, along with rejected testimony from other potential witnesses. But even then, it's astounding that pretty much all it took to convict him was the actual murderer pointing to him as an accomplice. It feels like anyone with the slightest shred of common sense would think that's not much to go off, but I guess 12 angry idiots felt otherwise.
22
myrevenge_IS_urkarma18 hr ago
+8
Have you ever had jury duty? It will certainly make you pray that you are never on trial to be judged by a group of your supposed peers.
8
Mrevilman20 hr ago
+3
World has changed a lot for sure - and it has been 22 years since his last trial. Memories fade, recollections change, and witnesses may not be available. I’m not sure how anything can get tried fairly after that amount of time.
3
GreaterAttack20 hr ago
-5
Why would you hope so? You don't know whether he's guilty.
-5
UnionsUnionsUnions21 hr ago
+14
Answer: F****** Oklahoma.
14
Workingdad_8323 hr ago
+44
Damn that’s crazy. And literally first paragraph says Oklahoma. I promise I can read. But thank you for your detailed answer.
44
A_Nonny_Muse23 hr ago
+116
Some of you won't be old enough to remember this.
When G.W. Bush was running for president the first time, they found a couple of corrupt cops in Chicago. Those cops put hundreds of people in prison on made up evidence and false confessions. There were numerous people on death row who - it turns out - were framed by these cops.
This led to Illinois declaring a general moratorium on all executions until they could determine guilt or innocence.
During an interview, G.W. Bush was asked if his state (Texas) would also declare a moratorium. His response was, "We don't make mistakes".
As soon as he became POTUS, Texas did declare a moratorium.... on appeals. They refused all appeals and started executing people as fast as possible to avoid appeals. All to avoid embarrassing their president. Hundreds of appeals were denied. After the fact, the innocence project manged to find absolute proof that some of those already executed were innocent. The state of Texas executed innocent people to avoid embarrassing their president.
In my opinion, the whole state of Texas and all Texans who supported this are unrepentant murderers.
116
Workingdad_8323 hr ago
+28
I’m old so I remember. But that is still crazy.
28
StatementOwn489622 hr ago
+21
This is why I do not support the death penalty. It’s just too easy to be taken advantage of and for mistakes to happen otherwise.
21
hookem54922 hr ago
+8
I don’t recall that at all but it is interesting, considering W commuted the death sentence of this serial killer when he was governor. [Henry Lee Lucas](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-commutes-death-sentence/)
8
ry170122 hr ago
+2
Probably why that guy fled to Spain.
2
Captain_Aware450323 hr ago
+27
When these states rush the executions, deny bail, etc. you know they are innocent.
And yeah, Texas has a history of killing innocent people because they don't want to admit they were wrong.
27
Workingdad_8323 hr ago
+6
Apparently I can’t read when it counts. I do t know where I pulled Texas from out of this story, but it was in Oklahoma.
6
Captain_Aware450323 hr ago
+2
Same thing. Not really a difference.
2
Workingdad_8323 hr ago
True. Semantics. 😂
0
Osiris-Amun-Ra23 hr ago
+1
The Grim Reaper must be furious with the whiplash.
1
Fallen_Jalter1 day ago
+252
who's paying for the bond? does he have anybody left to even help?
252
everydave4223 hr ago
+114
So far, no one. This is just reporting that he has the opportunity and the circumstances (monitor, no contact) if he posts.
114
Advanced-Trainer50817 hr ago
+28
Fun fact: While being on death row, he began a friendship with Richard Branson (billionaire CEO) and Branson has paid a lotttttttt of money over the years to advertise his case. I wouldn’t be surprised whatsoever if he helped.
28
IamTheEndOfReddit22 hr ago
+82
It’s an absurd amount, for someone who’s had no opportunity to earn money for decades. True justice, guilty of being poor
82
venkman236822 hr ago
+104
He is a twice convicted murderer who is still charged with Murder, it would be odd if the bond was lower.
104
veggeble21 hr ago
+149
Is it not more odd that a murderer can be free if they’re rich enough?
149
clownshow5919 hr ago
+8
Unfortunately, I’d wager this is mostly true at any point in human history.
8
surnik2221 hr ago
+55
Why?
If a rich person murdered someone do they deserve to be out of jail because they can afford a high bond but a poor person doesn’t deserve that same right?
All bonds are just extra rights and privileges for wealthier people. None of them make sense unless you think rich people deserve special rights.
You could maybe make an argument that bonds should exist and be set to a percent of the person’s net worth or income that would incentivize them not to break it.
But making a bond unaffordable to someone means it’s not about their risk of flight or an incentive to stick to the bail terms, it’s just a wealth check the rich can pass and the poor can’t.
55
arandomname50915 hr ago
-6
lol its based off the assumption people would have an incentive to show up for trial. That’s why family members will typically post bail for individuals.
Yeah rich people will be able to afford bail but they also have more to lose and will show up. If your bail is $100 because you are broke, you have no incentive and defeats the purpose. It also makes money for the court. Then the costs associated with bringing someone back. Think this is the most idiotic bleeding heart take
-6
surnik2215 hr ago
+1
The bleeding heart liberal take of “people shouldn’t get to leave jail just because they’re rich”?
If a judge deems some dangerous or a flight risk they should be held, if they aren’t they should be released. Guess what happens, they almost all still come back and more people who would have bailed out and committed new crimes were held so crime rates of those out pretrial went down. This has been done in places. It’s not some impossible idea.
But I guess holding violent criminals in jail pretrial even if they are rich is a liberal take now.
1
arandomname50913 hr ago
-1
Where are you getting that all people who post bail come back? You know that posting bail is about 1/10 of the actual price right?
Maybe I’m assuming but you’re trying to make the case this guy who is a twice convicted murderer should have a lower bond because he is poor. That higher earners should have to pay more… if someone can’t get 50k collateral for being involved in a murder you must have some issues.
This whole idea because someone makes more they should have higher everything ex: bail, taxes , sentences, is naive. Consider if you go down this route. They should get more priority and votes since they technically contribute more to the government.
-1
surnik2213 hr ago
+5
No one should have any paid bail….
If a judge says you are violent or a flight risk you stay in jail pre trial. If they don’t, you are free till the trial.
Being rich should have no bearing on if you are detained pre trial or not.
Illinois literally already has this for multiple years now’s.
When there was cash bail, 3% of people released pretrial committed another crime and 17% failed to appear for their trial.
After cash bail was eliminated, 1% of people released committed a crime and 15% failed to appear for their trial.
Literally better results from not having cash bail.
5
donkeybrainhero20 hr ago
+14
His convictions were thrown out by the Supreme Court
14
winterbird14 hr ago
+2
There used to be a time when that had some weight.
2
IamTheEndOfReddit20 hr ago
-1
You right
-1
kirksan21 hr ago
+13
You only have to pay 10% of the total, and even that’s negotiable if you find the right bondsman. I’m sure there are a bunch of anti-death penalty organizations and similar justice reform orgs that would be willing to put up the money. I don’t know much about the case, but it seems he may actually be innocent, so I hope he gets released.
13
rsclient21 hr ago
+32
For people who don't know: if you pay a bond at the courthouse, you put up the full amount and you get it back after you show up for trial. The "only pay 10%" is when you use a bond broker: you pay the broker 10%, non-refundable, and the broker puts up the entire amount at the courthouse.
Presumably, if you don't show up for court and you used a bail bond broker, the broker will do their best to find you and get their full amount, not just 10%. This is the premise of the Lee Majors show "The Fall Guy", where he finds people who skip out on their bail.
32
LazyCon21 hr ago
+12
Well they get their full amount from the court when they bring you in
12
stackjr16 hr ago
+3
In my city, at least, it's 10% of the bond, no matter who posts it. I only know this because I had to bail out my ex's sister multiple times.
3
bernietheweasel18 hr ago
+1
Interesting. Someone should do an updated take on that. Maybe reality TV
1
balognasoda18 hr ago
+3
Eric Cartman maybe
3
nyibolc_18 hr ago
+1
peter thiel
1
Warm-cement23 hr ago
+80
PBS made a documentary about this case, which is absolutely wild. He was found guilty mostly because of an accounting estimation being taken as proof of murder for hire. There were so many instances of grievous miscarriage of justice. It’s so good he’s going to be free (compared to 30 years of death row / solitary).
80
NewButOld8523 hr ago
+33
> It’s so good he’s going to be free
That's still up in the air. The state is retrying him, but will aim for a life sentence rather than the death penalty. He's been found guilty in two previous cases, so the third time may not be different (though a lot more people are familiar with his case now and the state will need to admit the evidence they previously withheld and led to the overturning of his previous conviction).
33
Warm-cement23 hr ago
+16
Yes, thank you for clarifying. But the evidence against him simply isn’t there anymore even for a guilty verdict. The witness statements won’t hold up, and the financial “proof” was shown to be false.
That’s making assumptions about operating in a fair justice system, however, so I guess we’ll see what actually happens.
16
BoutrosBoutrosDoggy22 hr ago
+14
Note: Oklahoma
14
beastwood94981 day ago
+36
Conviction was overturned more than a year ago. And he sat and sat and sat
36
AppropriateSea574617 hr ago
+7
How in holy f*** does someone get the death penalty based solely on the testimony of a murderer ?!?!? Strange that someone even gets the death penalty for a murder for hire when plenty commit the murder themselves and get out after a decade.
This shit is why most of the rest of the civilized world has done away with this primitive garbage.
7
whoopsieclaisy19 hr ago
+11
For the lawyers and law students out there, this is THE Richard Glossip from Glossip v. Gross, where the Supreme Court held that lethal injection did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment despite how often it goes painfully and horribly wrong.
11
AirsickIowlander1 day ago
+9
How tf do you bail out of prison?
9
NewButOld8523 hr ago
+27
Conviction was overturned by the SCotUS in 2025, but the state is going to retry him. So he could technically post bail and be out until the new trial.
27
Mrmojorisincg17 hr ago
+3
Unbiasedly asking, how is that not double jeopardy?
3
AirsickIowlander23 hr ago
+6
Ahh OK that makes sense, ty
6
Potential_Figure406120 hr ago
+1
that is not usually the case
1
DominusFL22 hr ago
+5
I'm guessing he's Googling countries without extradition really fast.
5
PensandoEnTea20 hr ago
+12
I hate to admit it, but if I were in his shoes, I'd disappear and never look back.
12
RoxxorMcOwnage21 hr ago
+2
Watch this become time served on a lesser included charge.
2
Going2beBANNEDanyway1 day ago
-7
That’s good for the Justice system.
-7
Potential_Figure406121 hr ago
well. good to know *some* people get off death row alive.
60 Comments