LISTEN LIVE: Supreme Court hears appeal from Richard Glossip, on death row for 26 years

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in the case of Richard Glossip, an Oklahoma death row prisoner who claims he is innocent and argues his constitutional rights were violated during trial.
Oral arguments are scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. EDT on Wednesday, Oct. 9. Listen live in the player above.
The high court will decide whether Oklahoma prosecutors denied Glossip due process by withholding certain evidence from the defense and then knowingly using false testimony against Glossip. Justices will also consider whether the court has the power to review a state court ruling — in this case, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which denied a request to drop Glossip’s conviction.
Glossip was convicted of arranging the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese, the owner of a motel in Oklahoma City where Glossip worked as a manager. In its case against Glossip, state prosecution has relied on the testimony of Justin Sneed, who said Glossip orchestrated the killing of Van Treese.
READ MORE: A new Supreme Court term begins in the shadow of a presidential election
Sneed testified that Glossip offered him $10,000 to kill Van Treese. In return for his testimony, prosecutors told Sneed he wouldn’t face the death penalty. Sneed is currently serving a life sentence.
Although an appeals court decision overturned Glossip’s conviction, he was again found guilty of first-degree murder in 2004. Glossip has maintained his innocence while spending decades on death row.
This is the second time Glossip’s case has appeared in front of the Supreme Court. In 2015, he joined other death row prisoners to challenge Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocols, though justices ultimately rejected their petition. This time, Glossip has the unlikely support of Oklahoma’s top law enforcement official to halt his execution.
State Attorney General Gentner Drummond argued in a brief filed with the Supreme Court that the justices should reverse the state court’s decision. He said the state didn’t properly disclose Sneed’s history of mental illness, which could have allowed Glossip’s lawyers to raise questions about his testimony.
Drummond, a Republican, is not seeking to exonerate Glossip, but believes he did not receive a fair trial. In a letter to the Supreme Court last year, Drummond wrote that it would be an “unthinkable” error if the execution was allowed to continue.
Seven other states have asked the Supreme Court to uphold the Glossip conviction, writing that they “have a substantial interest in federal-court respect for state-court decisions.”
Having already eaten three “last meals” but being spared each time, Glossip’s execution is on hold until the Supreme Court makes its ruling, which is expected by June.