
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

8,465 Listeners

4,038 Listeners

3,541 Listeners

2,026 Listeners

146 Listeners

6,294 Listeners

2,559 Listeners

2,374 Listeners

32,328 Listeners

7,230 Listeners

5,866 Listeners

3,948 Listeners

15,950 Listeners

749 Listeners

640 Listeners