By John Kruzel

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – When lawyers for Richard Glossip argue before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to vacate his conviction for a 1997 murder, the Oklahoma death row inmate will have an unlikely ally: Gentner Drummond, the state’s Republican attorney general.

Although Drummond has taken conservative stances on issues from immigration to abortion to environmental regulation, the decorated former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot broke with fellow Republican state attorneys general in Glossip’s case after concluding prosecutors hid evidence that might have led to an acquittal.

“If he is executed, I believe that it will be a travesty of justice,” Drummond said in an interview.

Glossip, now 61, was convicted in 1998 of a murder-for-hire scheme. After an appeals court overturned that conviction based on ineffective defense counsel, Glossip again was found guilty of first-degree murder in a 2004 retrial. Glossip is asking the Supreme Court to grant him a new trial after an Oklahoma court refused to overturn his conviction despite potentially exculpatory evidence being recently uncovered.

The decision by the Supreme Court, which begins its new term on Monday, is expected by the end of June.

Glossip was convicted of commissioning the murder of Barry Van Treese, owner of the Best Budget Inn motel in Oklahoma City where Glossip was a manager. All parties agree Van Treese was beaten to death with a baseball bat by maintenance worker Justin Sneed. Sneed confessed to the murder but avoided capital punishment by accepting a plea deal that involved testifying that Glossip paid him $10,000 to do it.

The victim’s family, represented by former federal judge Paul Cassell, filed a brief with the Supreme Court saying, “The truth here is that no evidence was suppressed and Glossip commissioned the murder of Barry Van Treese.”

After taking office last year, Drummond began reviewing each of Oklahoma’s 28 then-pending death row cases. The veteran trial attorney saw hallmarks of a rock solid prosecution in nearly all these convictions: direct witnesses, corroborating witnesses and what he called “facts galore” indicating a defendant’s guilt.

But what he saw in Glossip’s case troubled him.

Securing a murder conviction against Glossip hinged on the testimony of Sneed, who was a methamphetamine addict, and the reliability of his account. Glossip admitted to helping Sneed cover up the murder after it occurred, but denied knowing that Sneed planned to kill Van Treese or encouraging him to do so.

“The state’s witness was the murderer, and he was endorsed for the death penalty until he turned state’s evidence and said, ‘Oh, not me, but Mr. Glossip – he’s the mastermind,'” Drummond said. “That struck me as very odd.”

INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION

Drummond commissioned an independent investigation and disclosed information – including a prosecutor’s hand-written notes from a meeting with Sneed – that had been withheld from Glossip’s lawyers.

The new information cast doubt on Sneed’s credibility, Glossip’s lawyers said. They contend they were kept in the dark about Sneed receiving psychiatric treatment for bipolar disorder immediately after his arrest, and that prosecutors failed to correct a false statement Sneed made about his prescription for the medication lithium.

These revelations led Drummond to reach a momentous conclusion: If prosecutors had given defense lawyers all the exculpatory evidence they possessed, as required by law, then Glossip might have been acquitted.

“I don’t believe Mr. Glossip was given a fair trial,” Drummond said.

Glossip’s case is not the first time Drummond has pushed back against an order to kill.

In 1991, while flying an F-15 Eagle in a nighttime operation during the U.S.-led Persian Gulf War against Iraq, Drummond disobeyed three direct orders to fire a missile at an aircraft that had been identified as hostile. Facing anti-aircraft artillery fire and low fuel, then-Captain Drummond insisted on personally confirming that the aircraft was an enemy before shooting it down.

Drummond was later awarded the U.S. Distinguished Flying Cross for identifying the jet as an allied Saudi aircraft and withholding fire. His 1991 military citation said his actions had “prevented the tragic loss” of allied forces’ lives.

In Glossip’s case, Drummond showed “an unusual amount of courage” by asking the Supreme Court to halt Glossip’s execution and grant him a new trial, said Robin Maher, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center nonprofit group.

“It’s impossible to overstate just how extraordinary it is,” Maher said.

Drummond’s support, Maher added, may be the reason why the Supreme Court chose to halt Glossip’s execution and hear his case rather than reject it, as typically happens when death row inmates appeal.

Because Oklahoma’s attorney general is supporting Glossip’s appeal, the Supreme Court had to take the rare step of tapping an outside lawyer – private attorney Christopher Michel – to argue that Glossip’s conviction should be upheld.

Michel in his Supreme Court brief, among other things, sought to rebut the claim by Glossip’s lawyers that the newly disclosed information undermined Sneed’s credibility or the prosecution’s handling of the case.

Drummond’s maverick streak has put him at odds with Republican attorneys general from eight states who urged the justices to clear the way for Glossip’s execution. He previously bucked fellow Republicans in Oklahoma by successfully suing on constitutional grounds to block the first taxpayer-funded religious charter school in the United States.

Drummond said he did not weigh any possible political risks for backing Glossip, such as being painted by opponents as soft on crime.

“If that means I’m never elected again, then I can go to my grave being satisfied that I did the right thing,” Drummond said.

Drummond believes Glossip’s role in covering up Van Treese’s murder makes him at least an “accessory after the fact,” justifying a long prison sentence. But Glossip’s murder conviction was too flawed for Drummond to defend.

“Oklahomans deserve to have absolute faith that the death penalty is administered fairly and with certainty,” Drummond said.

Drummond said he feels duty-bound to attend executions to honor victims and their families, and the memory of those put to death. Seven times as attorney general he has sat four feet (1.2 meters) away as an inmate strapped to a gurney was administered a lethal injection.

Drummond said he will enforce whatever judgment the Supreme Court makes concerning Glossip, even if it means supervising an execution he believes to be wrong.

“I feel strongly that my position is correct,” Drummond said. “But if a majority on the Supreme Court says otherwise, I will be in the death chamber with Mr. Glossip.”

(Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)