
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

8,482 Listeners

4,126 Listeners

3,546 Listeners

2,024 Listeners

146 Listeners

6,310 Listeners

2,551 Listeners

2,390 Listeners

32,377 Listeners

7,242 Listeners

5,867 Listeners

3,953 Listeners

16,587 Listeners

745 Listeners

617 Listeners