An innocent man faces execution while the confessed killer is serving life. Two independent reports have found that Richard Glossip's conviction should be vacated.

New Findings:

That evidence includes:

• The jury did not see the videotaped interrogation of Justin Sneed, which clearly shows the detectives contaminating that interrogation by mentioning Glossip’s name six times in twenty minutes and de facto procured Sneed’s implication of Glossip by laying out a rhetorical “connect-the-dots'' blueprint by which Sneed could confess, point a finger at Glossip, and save his own life. “Since Sneed’s testimony was the sole evidence that Glossip planned the murder and hired Sneed to carry it out, Glossip’s conviction appears to be significantly tainted.”

• The jury never saw evidence of Justin Sneed’s drug use, criminal and violent history, or testimony from witnesses describing his “meth rages."

• The jury never saw or heard evidence that would have established that so-called witnesses for the prosecution like disgraced former law enforcement official Cliff Everhart lacked credibility altogether and indeed may have interfered with or impeded a proper police investigation, as well as perpetrated crimes related to the murder themselves.

• The jury received incorrect jury instructions that allowed them to set aside as optional the need to find corroborating evidence to find Richard Glossip guilty. One juror said “the jury instructions were very persuasive.”

• The jury never saw significant evidence of Sneed’s motives for conducting this assault on his own – that he needed money - including to support his illegal drug habit, that he knew Mr. Van Treese carried cash and/or kept cash in his car, and that he was upset with Mr. Van Treese for not paying him for his work at the motel and was experiencing the after-effects of taking methamphetamines right before the crime.

According to the Reed Smith report, “If the jury had been presented with the full picture of Sneed’s true character, we believe they would have had no problem concluding he was capable of committing this crime on his own, whether it was a robbery gone bad or an intentional killing.”

Previous Findings:

• Multiple witnesses jailed with Sneed who heard Sneed spill the truth about the murder: It was a robbery for drug money, planned and carried out by Sneed and his girlfriend, and Richard Glossip had nothing to do with it.

• Associates of Sneed and his girlfriend who gave sworn affidavits with new evidence about Sneed's raging drug addiction — a clear motive for a robbery-turned-murder.

• Medical and forensic experts who found that many of the facts the District Attorney had alleged about the crime and the motive simply were not true.