Amid the chaos created by the incoming Trump administration, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a surprisingly progressive ruling. In late February, the court granted a new trial for Oklahoma death row resident Richard Glossip. In a 5-3 decision written by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the court reaffirmed the obligation of prosecutors to correct untrue testimony by witnesses. 

Sotomayor found that in Glossip’s case, Oklahoma state prosecutors violated a precedent set in Napue v. Illinois, a 1959 decision where the Warren Court ruled that it was a violation of a defendant’s due process rights if prosecutors allowed witnesses to testify falsely. Along with Chief Judge John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh joined Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson in support of Sotomayor’s decision.   

In Glossip’s case, the key witness testified that he did not know why he had been prescribed lithium in jail, when in fact it was to treat bipolar disorder. The same witness claimed he had not met with a psychiatrist, but the prosecutor knew that he had done so. Per Napue, the prosecutor was obligated to correct the record for the jury, but she did not. 

Glossip is already making an impact in New York hearings (known as 440s) that examine whether past convictions should be overturned. One week after Sotomayor’s ruling, Lorenzo Glaspie’s 440 continued at the Brooklyn courthouse, with Glaspie’s team immediately calling attention to the SCOTUS decision.  

In 1989, Glaspie was convicted of attempted murder in a case involving the Wild Bunch, a notorious Brownsville gang. The DA’s case against Glaspie hinged on the word of a witness who kept changing his account of what he allegedly saw at a shooting that resulted in the death of James “Quarterfield” Baker, a Wild Bunch rival. Glaspie has consistently maintained his innocence throughout his 17 years of incarceration. 

In early March, Brooklyn Assistant District Attorney Paul Burns testified regarding his handling of Glaspie’s case. After spending his entire 38-year legal career in the Brooklyn DA’s office, Burns retired in 2021. Unlike a prominent former Brooklyn colleague, Burns did not claim amnesia about his actions. 

Burns instead offered quite specific explanations of his handling of Glaspie’s conviction. Despite several criminal offenses on his record, including at least three in Brooklyn, key witness Barry Antley told the jury that he had never been convicted of anything. 

At the 440, Burns said that Antley was “not the smartest witness,” so he likely did not understand that charges resulting in light penalties (e.g. conditional discharges, fines) indeed count as criminal convictions. As for Antley’s 30-day sentence for assault, Burns stated he “[didn’t] know what was going through his head” when Antley did not include that as a conviction. 

Regardless, Burns said, he proceeded to discuss details of Antley’s convictions, so his criminal record “was all out in the open in front of the jury.” 

“That’s not reflected in the trial transcript,” Glaspie’s lead attorney James Henning tells The Indypendent. 

The transcript, which Burns reviewed prior to his recent testimony, indeed shows that in the 1989 trial, Antley denied that he had ever been convicted on any charges. Asked why he had once spent 16 days in jail, Antley told the jury it was for “a fine.” In truth, it was for assault. 

Burns, however, did not correct that falsehood. Nor did the slippery prosecutor clarify that Antley had been convicted of at least one other violent crime. There is no dispute that Antley’s testimony was essential to the case against Glaspie, but Burns’ sole eyewitness had serious credibility issues. 

In his initial statement to the police, Antley named a single gunman other than Glaspie who shot Quarterfield in front of a Brownsville barbershop. He subsequently told detectives that three guys wearing ski masks got out of a car, with one pulling the trigger. In his third statement, Antley identified Glaspie as the lone shooter. 

In his trial summation, Burns assured jurors that Antley was “a bit simple-minded” and “not a saint.” That said, the prosecutor asked, “What is his motive to lie?” 

On the stand in early March, Burns acknowledged that Antley received significant benefits, including financial assistance, from the DA’s office after the trial. Burns also confirmed that there was no evidence corroborating Antley’s claim that he was present at the crime scene. Antley died in 2009. In the wake of Glossip, attorney James Henning asked Judge Donald Leo to consider overturning Glaspie’s conviction. Leo reserved judgment until the end of the 440 hearing, which resumes March 31.

The Indypendent is a New York City-based newspaper, website and weekly radio show. All of our work is made possible by readers like you. We’re halfway to our winter fund drive goal of raising $50,000. Please consider making a recurring or one-time donation or subscribe to our monthly print edition and get every copy sent straight to your mailbox.