Nov. 13, 2026
After 3 Decades On Death Row, Prosecutors Dropped His Murder Charge. So Why Do They Want Richard Glossip Back In Prison?
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed Oklahoma has officially dismissed the murder charge against 63-year-old Richard Glossip, who spent nearly 30 years on death row after being convicted of ordering the 1997 killing of his boss. Glossip’s conviction was overturned in 2025 for prosecutorial misconduct after he had already faced 9 separate execution dates and had three last meals. Glossip agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charge of being an accessory to murder after the fact, for the state to drop the murder charge. However, prosecutors are maintaining that because the maximum sentence for accessory is 45 years, Glossip should be sentenced to more time behind bars to pay the full debt for his role in the crime.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Three last meals, nine execution dates, and nearly three.
00:00:07
Speaker 2: Decades on death row.
00:00:10
Speaker 1: That was the life of 63-year-old Richard Glossop. But now things have dramatically changed because the state of Oklahoma has officially dismissed the murder charge. that put him on death row in the first place. And with that, everyone, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. It is Friday, November 13th, and there is a catch, though. Even though he has spent nearly 30 years on death row, it might not be enough prison time, according to prosecutors.
00:00:44
Speaker 3: This is silly. I mean, okay, I get it, fine. I mean, you heard it, you did the version off the top, right? Richard glossed up by the numbers, and those... Numbers are legit. This dude got very close to death several times based on a conviction that the Supreme Court said ain't holding up to water. And now he's been in prison 30 years. Why are they still coming after him? How much more can he do? How much more they want him to do? That's the twist in this story that right now doesn't make a lot of sense.
00:01:18
Speaker 1: It doesn't because, yes, you mentioned that the Supreme Court back in 2025 overturned his conviction.
00:01:25
Speaker 2: And then we saw him get released with some pretty heavy restrictions. Kim Kardashian.
00:01:31
Speaker 1: Actually helped him pay his or put up his bail money to get him out with restrictions back in May. And he was waiting for a new trial because prosecutors had initially said, yep, we're going to retry you. We just will take the death penalty off the table. So it was a little bit of a surprise to hear this announcement on Thursday that they were entering into a plea deal. And what the arrangement was that Glossop had to plead guilty to the lesser charge of being an accessory to to murder after the fact. And if he did that, they would drop the murder charge. But the maximum sentence for accessory to murder after the fact is 45 years. We mentioned Glossop served nearly 30. They really want more from him?
00:02:23
Speaker 3: I mean, you know what? Look, he's admitted now to something. He's admitted to being a part of something. well, isn't this what prosecutors are supposed to do? Are they supposed to go after someone to the maximum extent of the law? The max is 45?
00:02:42
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:02:42
Speaker 3: He did 30? Yes. He's admitting now that he did something that was worthy of a 45-year sentence, and he did 30. I don't know. At this point, this is no longer a suggestion that the That he's been wronged based on the number of years. He was wronged by being on death row.
00:03:07
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:03:07
Speaker 3: Perhaps in that, I think that probably balances this out, doesn't it? That's cruel and unusual to give a man nine different execution dates when you're ultimately admitting he didn't do it. We once said he did.
00:03:23
Speaker 2: Correct.
00:03:24
Speaker 1: And there was significant prosecutorial misconduct. So that was also absolutely ruled upon by the Supreme Court.
00:03:31
Speaker 3: Let's call it even. Everybody go home. Call it even.
00:03:34
Speaker 2: I don't understand.
00:03:35
Speaker 3: Yeah.
00:03:36
Speaker 1: And up until literally Thursday, the prosecution was maintaining that they were going to try him again for the third time. Here was the official statement from the attorney general. They said today Richard Glossop finally took some measure of responsibility for the murder of Barry Van Treese. While allowing Glossop to plead guilty to the lesser related charge of accessory to first degree murder was a difficult decision for me and more importantly the Van Treese family, we both recognize that this path ensures a conviction related to Mr. Van Treese's murder and gives us the best chance to secure additional prison time For Glossop, the Vantrese family and the Attorney General are hopeful that Judge Mai will consider the full extent of Glossop's deceit and deception along with his complicity in Mr. Vantrese's murder and sentence him to the maximum 45-year sentence.
00:04:33
Speaker 3: Okay, I'm willing to listen. I am. His deception and, I mean, I don't know. Forget, what if he was convicted of this? This was the original charge and conviction. How many years would he have gotten?
00:04:48
Speaker 1: And so it's interesting you say that because that is exactly what Glossop's attorney is referencing. He pointed out in reaction to what the attorney general is asking for, what the prosecutors are asking for, which is more prison time for Richard Glossop. His attorney said he is not guilty of this murder. He was never guilty of this murder. And we're just pleased that we have a chance now to go ahead and go to sentencing where we hope that this matter will be put behind us with the time he's already served. If Richard Glossop had pled guilty in 1997 to the charge that he pled guilty to today and the judge had then given him the maximum sentence of 45 years, Mr. Glossop would have left prison in 2016. because he would have been given good time credits for being in prison. So they're claiming he served 10 years more than he would have had he been given the original full harshest sentencing.
00:05:43
Speaker 2: Back in the day.
00:05:44
Speaker 3: Then what are we doing here?
00:05:46
Speaker 2: Exactly. I don't know.
00:05:57
Speaker 1: And to remind everybody just the role or the crime itself, because yes, this was over a 1997 Oklahoma city killing of best budget in owner.
00:06:09
Speaker 2: We mentioned his name, Barry Van Treese.
00:06:11
Speaker 1: He was beaten with a baseball bat and we know who actually wielded the deadly blows. It was a man named Justin Sneed and that man admitted to killing him. But what He said what he told prosecutors, and part of the problem in the initial conviction was that he said Glossop was the mastermind, that this was a murder-for-hire scheme, that Glossop wanted to be the hotel manager, and so he wanted to take out his boss so that he could run the best budget inn.
00:06:46
Speaker 3: What city was this again?
00:06:47
Speaker 2: Oklahoma City.
00:06:49
Speaker 3: The best budget inn.
00:06:51
Speaker 1: That you would be willing to murder someone so you could become the manager. For me, that sounds like a weak motive.
00:06:58
Speaker 3: It really, this is not the Mandalay Bay. You're about to take over as GM.
00:07:04
Speaker 2: Correct.
00:07:05
Speaker 3: This is the best budget end, and he wanted that primo job in Oklahoma City. Exactly.
00:07:11
Speaker 1: And by the way, the man who admitted to, Justin Seed, who admitted to actually murdering this man, Van Treese, He was given a deal. If you provide testimony against Richard Glossop, we'll sentence you to life without parole versus the death penalty. And so Glossop ends up getting the death penalty and Sneed ends up getting life behind bars. But he was the sole evidence linking Glossop to the murder.
00:07:41
Speaker 3: Period.
00:07:43
Speaker 2: Absolutely, period. And look, the U.S.
00:07:45
Speaker 1: Supreme Court ruled on this, saying that prosecutors did not correct his false testimony.
00:07:52
Speaker 2: They said that Sneed.
00:07:53
Speaker 1: Was obviously lying under oath on other accounts. And so if that had been made known to the jurors, they would have been able to at least consider the fact that he was lying to them.
00:08:02
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is pretty bad. This is a pretty bad prosecution no-no. They heard a man lie. And didn't correct the record.
00:08:10
Speaker 2: Correct.
00:08:10
Speaker 1: And so, by the way, the Oklahoma Attorney General before this one absolutely is the one who was pushing for this new trial. He said that the boxes of evidence that he looked through persuaded him that the trial that Glossop received was not fair. And he didn't necessarily believe that Glossop was innocent, but he didn't think that the trial was fair.
00:08:32
Speaker 2: And so, look, here we are.
00:08:33
Speaker 1: Is 30 years enough time behind bars given everything he's been through.
00:08:41
Speaker 3: Yeah, I would have to think, Robes, if he got 45 years, how it works there, we could do that math. You would have to assume.
00:08:50
Speaker 1: You know what?
00:08:51
Speaker 3: Here's the thing, though, babe. Even if he would have had to, he was required to do the full 45 if he was convicted back.
00:09:00
Speaker 1: Then.
00:09:00
Speaker 3: 30 years already, plus nine death dates. That makes up for it.
00:09:06
Speaker 2: Three last meals, and in one... At one point, he was minutes away from being executed.
00:09:11
Speaker 3: I think that's... Come on, let's call it even.
00:09:14
Speaker 1: I do think that the Vantrese family, the victim's family, has played a huge role in this. They have been very vocal, and they have spoken up and often and certainly put pressure on the Attorney General. They want him to spend more time behind bars.
00:09:31
Speaker 2: They believe... that he was the mastermind.
00:09:34
Speaker 1: They believe that he is the reason, ultimately, that their loved one was brutally beaten to death, even though he didn't wield the bat. And they have been putting pressure that they want him to serve more time.
00:09:45
Speaker 3: I can understand that.
00:09:46
Speaker 2: And so that is part of what's going on.
00:09:48
Speaker 1: Now, we know that he has a sentencing hearing December 17th and 18th.
00:09:54
Speaker 2: They've given it two days. I'm not sure what kind of testimony.
00:09:56
Speaker 1: There was also a big issue in court yesterday because the defense wants, there was apparently two droplets or two, I don't know how the secretions of DNA that were on that knife that they wanted examined and compared to Glossop's DNA and the police department lost the evidence. What?
00:10:19
Speaker 2: Yep.
00:10:20
Speaker 1: So now they're going to have to take that up as well because, look, Glossop is claiming and has said from the beginning, I had nothing to do with this. Not only obviously did I have nothing to do with the actual murder, but I didn't plan the murder. And it sounds as though the way the attorney worded this, that he decided to accept this deal basically to spare himself from going through another trial. He said to put this matter to rest. Rich pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact. Don't know exactly what he's specifically acknowledging or admitting, but it sounded the way the attorney put it that, He just was like, fine. If this is going to make the trial go away, if I can just live the rest of my years in peace, I'll go ahead and sign this. So I think it was a little bit perhaps surprising that the prosecutors and the attorney general were like, no, we want you to go back to jail.
00:11:15
Speaker 3: They had to have known, Robes. In accepting this deal, he had to have pretty good confidence he wouldn't be going back to prison.
00:11:21
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:11:21
Speaker 3: He had to have. Now, I understand that. Maybe the reason the prosecution's statement was so strong is because they too know the guy's probably not going to go back to jail. If they have to go to some sentencing hearing and let these two sides make an argument. So maybe come out, sound really tough, and then after you lose, there you go.
00:11:41
Speaker 2: It's what the judge decided. What can we do?
00:11:44
Speaker 1: That makes a lot of sense. But when we come back, we're going to remind you about just how close Richard Glossop came to dying. This is an Unbelievable story. Richard Glossop, after nearly 30 years on death row, remains a free man for now. He was released back in May after the Supreme Court ordered a new trial for him. And now on Thursday, he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of accessory after the fact of murder. After, again, serving nearly 30 years, prosecutors say, you know what? The maximum sentencing for that charge is 45 years.
00:12:30
Speaker 2: So you still owe us some time behind bars.
00:12:34
Speaker 1: We shall see when the sentencing hearing takes place next month. But this man has been through it. Nine different execution dates came really close to the point where he had three last meals. And in 2015, that's where it almost happened, he actually was held in the cell next to the death chamber waiting to be strapped to a gurney for his lethal injection. Like the day of his execution brought down put in the room, waiting to be strapped in. I mean, that is unbelievable. And the only reason why he wasn't executed that day, because one of the lethal drugs they received to carry out the lethal injection didn't match execution protocols.
00:13:25
Speaker 2: There was literally a mix-up in the drugs.
00:13:28
Speaker 3: It was good they were checking. Really? That is great they were checking. That is why Robes, he Let's just call it even on the 15 years that possibly were left. We're now saying it was wrong. The thing that got him on death row, the Supreme Court said, wasn't fair. Period. And we made this man eat three times, thinking he would never eat again. And we had him in, that's 15 years. Let's call it even. It's okay, y'all. Call it. Everybody go home. I understand the family and how they might feel. But there's two families here, and there's a justice system in the middle. How do you be fair to both of them? You have to err on the side, Robes, of making sure you don't do an injustice in the system like this. Robes, they prosecuted a guy and had him seconds from death. And the only thing that saved him was a screw-up with drugs. Baby, you don't do people like this. That's... Say we made a mistake. We screwed up. That never should have happened. Everybody go home.
00:14:36
Speaker 1: Right?
00:14:37
Speaker 3: Everybody go home.
00:14:38
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it feels like, I can't imagine other than the Van Treese family, anyone who would look at this case from the outside looking in with emotion removed and just, you would have to come to the conclusion that this man has paid his, he has paid the price for whatever crime it was that he committed.
00:14:59
Speaker 2: I would love to know what he's actually admitting to.
00:15:02
Speaker 1: Because it's a little confusing what he, like, did he know that Sneed killed Van Treese and then just didn't tell anyone? Or did he actually do anything to actively help him.
00:15:14
Speaker 3: Hide the murder? Hide the body.
00:15:16
Speaker 2: I thought that was it.
00:15:17
Speaker 1: Hide the body. But still, it feels like if that is the extent, and it does appear that that is the extent of what his role was in all of this, 30 years even seems like a lot. And certainly the mental anguish of getting nine execution dates.
00:15:32
Speaker 3: Did you happen to come across anywhere what his meals were?
00:15:35
Speaker 2: No, actually, I haven't.
00:15:36
Speaker 1: I thought about looking that up, and I didn't. Because to imagine that, just, yes, process that. Having one last meal that ends up not being your last. Having one execution date.
00:15:46
Speaker 3: Can you imagine the next one? He was like, you know what? I should have gotten this the first one.
00:15:51
Speaker 2: Like, each time.
00:15:52
Speaker 3: You're like, you know what?
00:15:52
Speaker 1: Damn it.
00:15:53
Speaker 2: Do-over.
00:15:53
Speaker 3: You get three do-overs on your last meal.
00:15:57
Speaker 2: Oh, my goodness. I kind of want to look that up.
00:15:59
Speaker 1: But look, yesterday he once again, and he did this when he was released back in May, but he thanked his attorneys for all their hard work, and he thanked his wife, Leah, for standing by his side. She's been with him throughout most of this, which is pretty remarkable.
00:16:15
Speaker 2: I don't know at what point they got married, but... They are together now.
00:16:19
Speaker 1: And he said he has been a model citizen since being released back in May. And truly his prison record as well was he had nothing that would have created any further evidence of a violent nature or just he was a model inmate. And so far he's been a model citizen since being released. We'll see what a judge decides next. December 17th, December 18th, of course, we will be watching. It was a big day and we'll see if it's finally the end of the prison road for Richard Glossop. And with that, everyone, we always appreciate you listening to us. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ Holmes.
00:16:59
Speaker 2: We'll talk soon.
Speaker 1: Three last meals, nine execution dates, and nearly three.
00:00:07
Speaker 2: Decades on death row.
00:00:10
Speaker 1: That was the life of 63-year-old Richard Glossop. But now things have dramatically changed because the state of Oklahoma has officially dismissed the murder charge. that put him on death row in the first place. And with that, everyone, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. It is Friday, November 13th, and there is a catch, though. Even though he has spent nearly 30 years on death row, it might not be enough prison time, according to prosecutors.
00:00:44
Speaker 3: This is silly. I mean, okay, I get it, fine. I mean, you heard it, you did the version off the top, right? Richard glossed up by the numbers, and those... Numbers are legit. This dude got very close to death several times based on a conviction that the Supreme Court said ain't holding up to water. And now he's been in prison 30 years. Why are they still coming after him? How much more can he do? How much more they want him to do? That's the twist in this story that right now doesn't make a lot of sense.
00:01:18
Speaker 1: It doesn't because, yes, you mentioned that the Supreme Court back in 2025 overturned his conviction.
00:01:25
Speaker 2: And then we saw him get released with some pretty heavy restrictions. Kim Kardashian.
00:01:31
Speaker 1: Actually helped him pay his or put up his bail money to get him out with restrictions back in May. And he was waiting for a new trial because prosecutors had initially said, yep, we're going to retry you. We just will take the death penalty off the table. So it was a little bit of a surprise to hear this announcement on Thursday that they were entering into a plea deal. And what the arrangement was that Glossop had to plead guilty to the lesser charge of being an accessory to to murder after the fact. And if he did that, they would drop the murder charge. But the maximum sentence for accessory to murder after the fact is 45 years. We mentioned Glossop served nearly 30. They really want more from him?
00:02:23
Speaker 3: I mean, you know what? Look, he's admitted now to something. He's admitted to being a part of something. well, isn't this what prosecutors are supposed to do? Are they supposed to go after someone to the maximum extent of the law? The max is 45?
00:02:42
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:02:42
Speaker 3: He did 30? Yes. He's admitting now that he did something that was worthy of a 45-year sentence, and he did 30. I don't know. At this point, this is no longer a suggestion that the That he's been wronged based on the number of years. He was wronged by being on death row.
00:03:07
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:03:07
Speaker 3: Perhaps in that, I think that probably balances this out, doesn't it? That's cruel and unusual to give a man nine different execution dates when you're ultimately admitting he didn't do it. We once said he did.
00:03:23
Speaker 2: Correct.
00:03:24
Speaker 1: And there was significant prosecutorial misconduct. So that was also absolutely ruled upon by the Supreme Court.
00:03:31
Speaker 3: Let's call it even. Everybody go home. Call it even.
00:03:34
Speaker 2: I don't understand.
00:03:35
Speaker 3: Yeah.
00:03:36
Speaker 1: And up until literally Thursday, the prosecution was maintaining that they were going to try him again for the third time. Here was the official statement from the attorney general. They said today Richard Glossop finally took some measure of responsibility for the murder of Barry Van Treese. While allowing Glossop to plead guilty to the lesser related charge of accessory to first degree murder was a difficult decision for me and more importantly the Van Treese family, we both recognize that this path ensures a conviction related to Mr. Van Treese's murder and gives us the best chance to secure additional prison time For Glossop, the Vantrese family and the Attorney General are hopeful that Judge Mai will consider the full extent of Glossop's deceit and deception along with his complicity in Mr. Vantrese's murder and sentence him to the maximum 45-year sentence.
00:04:33
Speaker 3: Okay, I'm willing to listen. I am. His deception and, I mean, I don't know. Forget, what if he was convicted of this? This was the original charge and conviction. How many years would he have gotten?
00:04:48
Speaker 1: And so it's interesting you say that because that is exactly what Glossop's attorney is referencing. He pointed out in reaction to what the attorney general is asking for, what the prosecutors are asking for, which is more prison time for Richard Glossop. His attorney said he is not guilty of this murder. He was never guilty of this murder. And we're just pleased that we have a chance now to go ahead and go to sentencing where we hope that this matter will be put behind us with the time he's already served. If Richard Glossop had pled guilty in 1997 to the charge that he pled guilty to today and the judge had then given him the maximum sentence of 45 years, Mr. Glossop would have left prison in 2016. because he would have been given good time credits for being in prison. So they're claiming he served 10 years more than he would have had he been given the original full harshest sentencing.
00:05:43
Speaker 2: Back in the day.
00:05:44
Speaker 3: Then what are we doing here?
00:05:46
Speaker 2: Exactly. I don't know.
00:05:57
Speaker 1: And to remind everybody just the role or the crime itself, because yes, this was over a 1997 Oklahoma city killing of best budget in owner.
00:06:09
Speaker 2: We mentioned his name, Barry Van Treese.
00:06:11
Speaker 1: He was beaten with a baseball bat and we know who actually wielded the deadly blows. It was a man named Justin Sneed and that man admitted to killing him. But what He said what he told prosecutors, and part of the problem in the initial conviction was that he said Glossop was the mastermind, that this was a murder-for-hire scheme, that Glossop wanted to be the hotel manager, and so he wanted to take out his boss so that he could run the best budget inn.
00:06:46
Speaker 3: What city was this again?
00:06:47
Speaker 2: Oklahoma City.
00:06:49
Speaker 3: The best budget inn.
00:06:51
Speaker 1: That you would be willing to murder someone so you could become the manager. For me, that sounds like a weak motive.
00:06:58
Speaker 3: It really, this is not the Mandalay Bay. You're about to take over as GM.
00:07:04
Speaker 2: Correct.
00:07:05
Speaker 3: This is the best budget end, and he wanted that primo job in Oklahoma City. Exactly.
00:07:11
Speaker 1: And by the way, the man who admitted to, Justin Seed, who admitted to actually murdering this man, Van Treese, He was given a deal. If you provide testimony against Richard Glossop, we'll sentence you to life without parole versus the death penalty. And so Glossop ends up getting the death penalty and Sneed ends up getting life behind bars. But he was the sole evidence linking Glossop to the murder.
00:07:41
Speaker 3: Period.
00:07:43
Speaker 2: Absolutely, period. And look, the U.S.
00:07:45
Speaker 1: Supreme Court ruled on this, saying that prosecutors did not correct his false testimony.
00:07:52
Speaker 2: They said that Sneed.
00:07:53
Speaker 1: Was obviously lying under oath on other accounts. And so if that had been made known to the jurors, they would have been able to at least consider the fact that he was lying to them.
00:08:02
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is pretty bad. This is a pretty bad prosecution no-no. They heard a man lie. And didn't correct the record.
00:08:10
Speaker 2: Correct.
00:08:10
Speaker 1: And so, by the way, the Oklahoma Attorney General before this one absolutely is the one who was pushing for this new trial. He said that the boxes of evidence that he looked through persuaded him that the trial that Glossop received was not fair. And he didn't necessarily believe that Glossop was innocent, but he didn't think that the trial was fair.
00:08:32
Speaker 2: And so, look, here we are.
00:08:33
Speaker 1: Is 30 years enough time behind bars given everything he's been through.
00:08:41
Speaker 3: Yeah, I would have to think, Robes, if he got 45 years, how it works there, we could do that math. You would have to assume.
00:08:50
Speaker 1: You know what?
00:08:51
Speaker 3: Here's the thing, though, babe. Even if he would have had to, he was required to do the full 45 if he was convicted back.
00:09:00
Speaker 1: Then.
00:09:00
Speaker 3: 30 years already, plus nine death dates. That makes up for it.
00:09:06
Speaker 2: Three last meals, and in one... At one point, he was minutes away from being executed.
00:09:11
Speaker 3: I think that's... Come on, let's call it even.
00:09:14
Speaker 1: I do think that the Vantrese family, the victim's family, has played a huge role in this. They have been very vocal, and they have spoken up and often and certainly put pressure on the Attorney General. They want him to spend more time behind bars.
00:09:31
Speaker 2: They believe... that he was the mastermind.
00:09:34
Speaker 1: They believe that he is the reason, ultimately, that their loved one was brutally beaten to death, even though he didn't wield the bat. And they have been putting pressure that they want him to serve more time.
00:09:45
Speaker 3: I can understand that.
00:09:46
Speaker 2: And so that is part of what's going on.
00:09:48
Speaker 1: Now, we know that he has a sentencing hearing December 17th and 18th.
00:09:54
Speaker 2: They've given it two days. I'm not sure what kind of testimony.
00:09:56
Speaker 1: There was also a big issue in court yesterday because the defense wants, there was apparently two droplets or two, I don't know how the secretions of DNA that were on that knife that they wanted examined and compared to Glossop's DNA and the police department lost the evidence. What?
00:10:19
Speaker 2: Yep.
00:10:20
Speaker 1: So now they're going to have to take that up as well because, look, Glossop is claiming and has said from the beginning, I had nothing to do with this. Not only obviously did I have nothing to do with the actual murder, but I didn't plan the murder. And it sounds as though the way the attorney worded this, that he decided to accept this deal basically to spare himself from going through another trial. He said to put this matter to rest. Rich pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact. Don't know exactly what he's specifically acknowledging or admitting, but it sounded the way the attorney put it that, He just was like, fine. If this is going to make the trial go away, if I can just live the rest of my years in peace, I'll go ahead and sign this. So I think it was a little bit perhaps surprising that the prosecutors and the attorney general were like, no, we want you to go back to jail.
00:11:15
Speaker 3: They had to have known, Robes. In accepting this deal, he had to have pretty good confidence he wouldn't be going back to prison.
00:11:21
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:11:21
Speaker 3: He had to have. Now, I understand that. Maybe the reason the prosecution's statement was so strong is because they too know the guy's probably not going to go back to jail. If they have to go to some sentencing hearing and let these two sides make an argument. So maybe come out, sound really tough, and then after you lose, there you go.
00:11:41
Speaker 2: It's what the judge decided. What can we do?
00:11:44
Speaker 1: That makes a lot of sense. But when we come back, we're going to remind you about just how close Richard Glossop came to dying. This is an Unbelievable story. Richard Glossop, after nearly 30 years on death row, remains a free man for now. He was released back in May after the Supreme Court ordered a new trial for him. And now on Thursday, he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of accessory after the fact of murder. After, again, serving nearly 30 years, prosecutors say, you know what? The maximum sentencing for that charge is 45 years.
00:12:30
Speaker 2: So you still owe us some time behind bars.
00:12:34
Speaker 1: We shall see when the sentencing hearing takes place next month. But this man has been through it. Nine different execution dates came really close to the point where he had three last meals. And in 2015, that's where it almost happened, he actually was held in the cell next to the death chamber waiting to be strapped to a gurney for his lethal injection. Like the day of his execution brought down put in the room, waiting to be strapped in. I mean, that is unbelievable. And the only reason why he wasn't executed that day, because one of the lethal drugs they received to carry out the lethal injection didn't match execution protocols.
00:13:25
Speaker 2: There was literally a mix-up in the drugs.
00:13:28
Speaker 3: It was good they were checking. Really? That is great they were checking. That is why Robes, he Let's just call it even on the 15 years that possibly were left. We're now saying it was wrong. The thing that got him on death row, the Supreme Court said, wasn't fair. Period. And we made this man eat three times, thinking he would never eat again. And we had him in, that's 15 years. Let's call it even. It's okay, y'all. Call it. Everybody go home. I understand the family and how they might feel. But there's two families here, and there's a justice system in the middle. How do you be fair to both of them? You have to err on the side, Robes, of making sure you don't do an injustice in the system like this. Robes, they prosecuted a guy and had him seconds from death. And the only thing that saved him was a screw-up with drugs. Baby, you don't do people like this. That's... Say we made a mistake. We screwed up. That never should have happened. Everybody go home.
00:14:36
Speaker 1: Right?
00:14:37
Speaker 3: Everybody go home.
00:14:38
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it feels like, I can't imagine other than the Van Treese family, anyone who would look at this case from the outside looking in with emotion removed and just, you would have to come to the conclusion that this man has paid his, he has paid the price for whatever crime it was that he committed.
00:14:59
Speaker 2: I would love to know what he's actually admitting to.
00:15:02
Speaker 1: Because it's a little confusing what he, like, did he know that Sneed killed Van Treese and then just didn't tell anyone? Or did he actually do anything to actively help him.
00:15:14
Speaker 3: Hide the murder? Hide the body.
00:15:16
Speaker 2: I thought that was it.
00:15:17
Speaker 1: Hide the body. But still, it feels like if that is the extent, and it does appear that that is the extent of what his role was in all of this, 30 years even seems like a lot. And certainly the mental anguish of getting nine execution dates.
00:15:32
Speaker 3: Did you happen to come across anywhere what his meals were?
00:15:35
Speaker 2: No, actually, I haven't.
00:15:36
Speaker 1: I thought about looking that up, and I didn't. Because to imagine that, just, yes, process that. Having one last meal that ends up not being your last. Having one execution date.
00:15:46
Speaker 3: Can you imagine the next one? He was like, you know what? I should have gotten this the first one.
00:15:51
Speaker 2: Like, each time.
00:15:52
Speaker 3: You're like, you know what?
00:15:52
Speaker 1: Damn it.
00:15:53
Speaker 2: Do-over.
00:15:53
Speaker 3: You get three do-overs on your last meal.
00:15:57
Speaker 2: Oh, my goodness. I kind of want to look that up.
00:15:59
Speaker 1: But look, yesterday he once again, and he did this when he was released back in May, but he thanked his attorneys for all their hard work, and he thanked his wife, Leah, for standing by his side. She's been with him throughout most of this, which is pretty remarkable.
00:16:15
Speaker 2: I don't know at what point they got married, but... They are together now.
00:16:19
Speaker 1: And he said he has been a model citizen since being released back in May. And truly his prison record as well was he had nothing that would have created any further evidence of a violent nature or just he was a model inmate. And so far he's been a model citizen since being released. We'll see what a judge decides next. December 17th, December 18th, of course, we will be watching. It was a big day and we'll see if it's finally the end of the prison road for Richard Glossop. And with that, everyone, we always appreciate you listening to us. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ Holmes.
00:16:59
Speaker 2: We'll talk soon.