⚖️ The Case That Refuses to Die

In a stunning twist inside the Oklahoma County Courthouse, Judge Susan Stallings has ignited new controversy by refusing to step down from overseeing the third trial of Richard Glossip, a man whose name has become synonymous with wrongful conviction debates in America.

On September 4, 2025, Glossip’s defense team confronted Stallings about her personal ties to Fern Smith, the prosecutor who originally sent Glossip to death row. In an extraordinary admission, Stallings acknowledged she once vacationed in Spain with Smith — a connection previously undisclosed.

This revelation adds yet another chapter to a saga that has stretched nearly three decades, involved nine execution dates, and sparked a national reckoning over prosecutorial misconduct and judicial bias.

🔪 The Crime, the Conviction, and the Controversy

Richard Glossip was first convicted in 1998 for orchestrating the 1997 murder of motel owner Barry Van Treese. Yet, the state’s entire case rested on the shaky testimony of Justin Sneed — the man who admitted to the killing.

In exchange for a life sentence, Sneed testified that Glossip offered him $10,000 to commit the murder. No physical evidence tied Glossip to the crime, and he has maintained his innocence ever since.

In February 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Glossip’s conviction, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing that prosecutors failed to disclose that Sneed was being treated for a serious psychiatric condition — and falsely testified otherwise.

🧾 Missing Evidence and Early Misconduct

Key evidence — including motel receipts, masking tape, and a shower curtain — was destroyed between Glossip’s first and second trials. Defense attorneys have traced this to Fern Smith, the original prosecutor, who controlled the flow of evidence and set the tone for the state’s case.

📅 Timeline: Richard Glossip’s Legal Odyssey

⚖️ The Judicial Conflict: A Vacation That Changed Everything

Judge Susan Stallings began her career under Fern Smith, praising her in a 2019 Bar Association speech as “a formative influence.” But during a closed Rule 15 hearing in 2025, Stallings revealed that she had traveled to Spain with Smith in 1997, the same year Glossip was charged with murder.

She tried to downplay the link — joking that Smith “wasn’t even in the same car” for parts of the trip — but to Glossip’s attorneys, the optics were undeniable: a judge with a personal connection to the very prosecutor at the heart of the case.

🚫 A Pattern of Refusals

This isn’t the first time Stallings has resisted recusal. Earlier in 2025, she refused to step aside from the death penalty case of Tremane Wood, which also involved misconduct claims against Fern Smith.

Her career is further intertwined with former District Attorney David Prater, who fiercely defended Glossip’s conviction and once called his innocence claim a “bullshit PR campaign.” Stallings worked directly under Prater as a prosecutor from 2010 to 2022.

📜 The Legal Fight for Recusal

Oklahoma’s Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that judges disqualify themselves from any case where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Glossip’s attorneys argue that Stallings’ connections to both Smith and Prater create an “objectively intolerable risk” of bias. They fear she cannot fairly rule on key issues involving evidence destruction and prosecutorial misconduct — areas where her former colleagues are under scrutiny.

Still, Stallings insists she can be impartial, declaring,

“I take impartiality very seriously — in the very marrow of my bones.”

Prosecutors counter that the defense is “conjuring an enduring friendship” that doesn’t reflect reality.

🏛️ The Political Undercurrents

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who once supported Glossip’s exoneration, stunned observers in June 2025 by announcing plans to retry him — not for execution, but for life in prison.

The reversal raised eyebrows, especially as Drummond began his campaign for governor in a deep-red state. Critics suggest the move was a political calculation, aligning him with “tough-on-crime” voters while distancing himself from prior sympathy toward Glossip.

The Intercept reported that Drummond may have previously struck a private agreement with Glossip’s defense to resolve the case swiftly — a deal that now appears abandoned.

🧩 A Systemic Culture of Misconduct

The Oklahoma County District Attorney’s Office has long faced criticism for aggressive and unethical practices. Former DA Robert “Cowboy Bob” Macy, under whom both Smith and Prater served, secured 54 death sentences, many later overturned for misconduct.

Glossip’s attorneys argue the problem isn’t isolated — it’s institutional. Nearly every judge assigned to the case has prior ties to the DA’s office, forcing a revolving door of recusals and eroding confidence in the system’s fairness.

⚖️ What’s at Stake

For Richard Glossip, now in his late 50s, this third trial could mean spending the rest of his life behind bars for a crime he has always denied.

For Oklahoma’s justice system, the implications run deeper. The question isn’t just whether Glossip gets a fair trial — it’s whether anyone can, in a system where personal networks blur the line between prosecution and judiciary.

An evidentiary hearing on October 30, 2025, will determine whether Judge Stallings must recuse herself. Ironically, she’ll preside over a hearing about her own impartiality — a Kafkaesque scenario emblematic of this case’s dysfunction.

🧠 Conclusion: Justice Delayed, Justice Denied?

The Richard Glossip case has already exposed false testimony, missing evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct. Now it confronts an even deeper dilemma — whether a justice system so entangled in personal and institutional relationships can ever deliver true impartiality.

As Stallings clings to the bench, the central question looms larger than ever:
Can a judge who vacationed with the original prosecutor — and who served under others who defended the conviction — truly claim neutrality?

For Glossip, and for Oklahoma’s courts, the answer could redefine what justice means in America’s death penalty system.