Richard Glossip Informative Speech

1059 Words5 Pages
Specific Purpose: To inform my audience about the case of Richard Glossip who was sentenced to death for murder in Oklahoma. Central Idea: The case has been ongoing for 18 years now with the first trial in 1998, the retrial in 2004, and the emergence of new evidence in 2015 has once again questioned the innocence of Richard Glossip. Introduction I. Has anyone ever put you in a position in which you had to decide whether he/she was lying to you? If so, what influenced your decision? Regardless of the decision you made, it most likely did not affect that person’s entire life. II. However, this is not the case with the jurors who had to decide whether Richard Glossip, of Oklahoma, was guilty of the murder of Barry Van Treese in 1997. Controversially,…show more content…
The murder of Barry Van Treese in January 1997 marked the start of the case and later the first trial in 1998. A. An article published by The Guardian on September 13, 2015 states the details of the case from its beginning in 1997 to its revival this year. The bloody and horrific nightmare began in January 1997 in Oklahoma City at Van Treese’s motel, Best Budget Inn. At the time, Justin Sneed was a maintenance worker at the motel and Richard Glossip was the manager. One night, Sneed used a baseball bat to beat and murder Van Treese. B. The Guardian explains that the evidence left at the crime scene includes DNA and fingerprints that prove Sneed’s involvement in the murder. However, Sneed’s retelling of that night was constantly changing. The interrogations produced multiple stories but, finally, Sneed admitted to killing Van Treese only because he was told to do so by Glossip in return for money. By admitting to the murder and implicating Glossip, Sneed entered into a plea deal in which he was able to avoid the death penalty. Glossip maintained that he was innocent and that there was no evidence to tie him to the…show more content…
The second stage of the case began in 2001 when Glossip’s party appealed the sentencing, which led to the retrial in 2004. A. A case summary from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma states that Glossip argued for a second and fair trial because he believed the lawyers were unprepared for the first trial and simply expected him to enter into a plea deal. Donald Knight, Glossip’s new attorney says that a reason to believe that the lawyers were unprepared for the trial is that they did not question Glossip’s girlfriend who could have been his alibi during the time that Sneed said Glossip was helping him get rid of evidence of the murder. B. Even with a new trial, the outcome remained the same as the case summary of the second trial describes. In 2004, at the retrial, Glossip was once again sentenced to death for murder. During the trial, a piece of information was used against Glossip. This information consisted of the fact that Sneed depended on Glossip significantly. Glossip, as the manager, provided him with employment and housing at the motel. This information gives Sneed a purpose for going through with Glossip’s supposed demand to kill Van

    More about Richard Glossip Informative Speech

      Open Document