
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Glossip v. Oklahoma, a case challenging the constitutionality of Richard Glossip’s conviction and sentencing to death for a 1997 murder. In this episode, Paul Cassell of the University of Utah and Andrea Miller of the Oklahoma Innocence Project join Jeffrey Rosen to recap the oral arguments and debate whether or not Glossip’s conviction should stand in light of newly revealed documents that allegedly suggest prosecutorial misconduct.
Donate
By National Constitution Center4.6
10811,081 ratings
Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Glossip v. Oklahoma, a case challenging the constitutionality of Richard Glossip’s conviction and sentencing to death for a 1997 murder. In this episode, Paul Cassell of the University of Utah and Andrea Miller of the Oklahoma Innocence Project join Jeffrey Rosen to recap the oral arguments and debate whether or not Glossip’s conviction should stand in light of newly revealed documents that allegedly suggest prosecutorial misconduct.
Donate

4,087 Listeners

3,565 Listeners

146 Listeners

6,315 Listeners

2,555 Listeners

2,375 Listeners

32,352 Listeners

7,258 Listeners

5,836 Listeners

3,920 Listeners

3,356 Listeners

16,291 Listeners

402 Listeners

744 Listeners

611 Listeners