Attorney Don Knight is asking an Oklahoma County judge to enforce a 2023 email “agreement” with Attorney General Gentner Drummond that would release Richard Glossip from prison, although other emails indicate Knight did not present his client with specific details of the agreement and a drafted contract was never signed by the parties.
The emails surfaced in legal filings Wednesday as Drummond’s office pursues a third murder conviction — but no longer the death penalty — for the man who has faced nine execution dates and has thrice eaten his last meal on death row.
Glossip has twice been convicted of first-degree murder for the death hotel owner Barry Van Treese in 1997, but each conviction has been vacated, most recently this year when the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case back to Oklahoma County. Drummond, who told justices that Glossip’s second trial was tainted, quickly took over the case in May and has pushed to refile the murder charge — a stark departure from his apparent April 2023 plan when Glossip’s appeal was pending with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
According to Knight’s “motion to enforce express agreement reached with state of Oklahoma” filed Wednesday, Knight outlined the basic terms of a release-dismissal agreement to Drummond in an email at 6:35 p.m. Saturday, April 1, 2023.
“Once the conviction is vacated and the matter returned to the [Oklahoma County District Court], the [Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office] will continue to prosecute the case on behalf of the state. Since the conviction will be vacated, the state will file new charges against Mr. Glossip of a single count of being an accessory after the fact, the maximum sentence for which in 1997 was 45 years,” Knight proposed. “Mr. Glossip will plead guilty to this charge.”
After pleading guilty, the email said the state would give Glossip credit for all time he has served in prison since Jan. 10, 1997, with full good time credits as a level 4 inmate — an inmate who has received an “outstanding” evaluation for a work or education program and maintenance of their living quarters — for each day in custody.
“The parties stipulate and agree that, with this credit being applied, Mr. Glossip is eligible for immediate release as his sentence was completed in 2016,” Knight wrote. “Mr. Glossip, upon entry of the plea and sentence, which will be completed in a single proceeding, will be be immediately released, and will not be placed on probation, parole or post-imprisonment supervision. He will not be required to pay any fines, costs, or fees associated with his case. He will not be required to pay any restitution as a result of this plea. The state of Oklahoma will have no further right to claim any time, or anything of value, from Mr. Glossip resulting from the events that began on Jan. 7, 1997, and continue through the date of his plea and sentencing.”
In exchange, Glossip would agree to release all state and Oklahoma County entities and employees from any potential legal claims or actions related to his arrest and incarceration.
Three and a half hours later, Drummond emailed a four-word reply: “We are in agreement.”
In Wednesday’s motion, Knight asked the court to enforce the terms of that 2023 email.
“General Drummond has publicly stated that ‘a handshake is my word, and my word is my bond,'” the motion reads. “On more than just a handshake — in fact by written response — General Drummond promised to resolve this case. Mr. Glossip now asks this court to enforce of the release-dismissal agreement.”
The agreement contrasts with Drummond’s public plans to try Glossip again for murder, although with the death penalty off the table. When the U.S. Supreme Court vacated Glossip’s conviction in February because “the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony,” the court remanded his case back to the state for a new trial, the third Glossip will face for Van Treese’s murder.
“While it was clear to me and to the U.S. Supreme Court that Mr. Glossip did not receive a fair trial, I have never proclaimed his innocence,” Drummond said in a statement June 9. “After the high court remanded the matter back to the district court, my office thoroughly reviewed the merits of the case against Richard Glossip and concluded that sufficient evidence exists to secure a murder conviction.”
Drummond denies email was binding, cites later legal developments
Drummond filed a same-day response to Knight’s motion emphasizing that the 2023 release-dismissal agreement had never been finalized, as evidenced by Knight’s own correspondence.
“The email reflects Attorney General Drummond agreed the ‘basic terms’ of what had been discussed were correctly identified, but that as Mr. Knight made clear the defendant’s attorneys were still ‘preparing’ their ‘more detailed’ proposed agreement which would be subject to further revision and ultimately approval by the attorney general,” the state’s response said.
Further, Drummond argued the terms he agreed to via email were predicated on the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals remanding the case back to Oklahoma County — which it did not. Instead, the court denied Drummond’s request to vacate.
“Soon the OCCA’s denial of post-conviction relief on April 20, 2023, made the defendant’s proposed agreement for resolution of criminal charges at the district court level a moot point,” the response said. “The defendant’s proposed agreement was never finalized nor was it ever executed by the parties.”
Drummond’s response to the court includes exhibits showing emails between Knight and Drummond, including one dated April 3 that contained Knight’s draft of the release-dismissal agreement.
“The draft contains all the elements of the email I sent to you on Saturday and to which you expressed your consent. Of course, this is a draft and I expect you may have some changes,” Knight wrote.
In Knight’s motion, he argued the release-dismissal agreement was a lawful contract because it had parties capable of contracting, parties who had expressed their consent to be bound to the contract, a lawful object and sufficient cause or consideration.
The second item — parties who had expressed their consent — seems to be the point of disagreement between the two parties. Knight’s motion contends that Drummond’s email saying, “We are in agreement,” constituted consent. Drummond’s team contends the email was simple correspondence between attorneys, not a legally binding decision.
“Tellingly, defense counsel has not provided this court with a final plea agreement executed by the state and the defendant. Instead, counsel provides nothing more than attorney correspondence discussing the future drafting of such a document,” Drummond’s response said. “The reason for the omission is simple — the parties never reached a final plea agreement.”
Drummond’s response contends that Knight’s acknowledgment that the document he sent April 3 was a “draft” proves the April 1 email was not binding. Knight’s email also mentions intentions for a “signed agreement.”
“Also, I do not know if there is a plan to file this document anywhere or if it is simply a signed agreement that either party can use if a need arises. Filing it is not something we have discussed,” Knight wrote. “In creating this written agreement, I considered the terms to be binding on both parties, so that we can move forward, and both be certain the case ends as described in the document. I do not think it needs to be filed in any court unless something falls through.”
On April 5, Knight emailed again and said Glossip himself had yet to review the pending document.
“I did not discuss with Mr. Glossip what we have agreed would happen if/when we get back to the district court but, from my conversation with him, I can assure you that he will agree to resolve this case precisely as contemplated in the full agreement we have made,” Knight wrote.
A spokesman for the attorney general’s office declined to comment further on the issue than what was said in the state’s response. Knight also declined to comment.
View Glossip’s motion to enforce
View the state’s response
