A former prosecutor, Judge Susan Stallings, is facing a crucial test of her impartiality as she presides over the retrial of death row inmate Richard Glossip. A former Oklahoma City prosecutor herself, Fern Smith, had sent Glossip to death row for the 1997 murder of his boss, Barry Van Treese. But now, with Stallings on the bench, Glossip's defense team is questioning whether she can be impartial in handling the case.
Stallings has already made a startling admission about her connection to Smith. During a closed-door proceeding, Stallings revealed that she had taken a trip with Smith in 1997, just as Glossip was being charged with murder. The trip was reportedly a vacation with colleagues from the DA's office, but Stallings downplayed its significance, saying it was simply a "hen do" - an informal gathering of friends.
However, Glossip's lawyers argue that this revelation raises concerns about Stallings' impartiality. They point out that Stallings had worked for Smith during her time at the DA's office and had even praised Smith as a formative influence. Furthermore, Stallings had presided over the evidentiary hearing in the case of Tremane Wood, who was also sentenced to death for murder, despite his lawyers' requests that she recuse herself.
Stallings has insisted that she can be impartial, but her words and actions have sparked questions about her ability to remain neutral. Defense attorney Corbin Brewster asked Stallings if she had discussed any of the cases Smith was handling at the DA's office during their trip, and she replied that it was not relevant and did not involve discussing case details.
The hearing to determine whether Stallings can preside over Glossip's retrial has been scheduled for October 30. However, with the attorney general announcing his decision to retry Glossip despite a lack of reliable evidence, concerns about the fairness of the trial have only grown. Glossip's lawyers argue that their client cannot receive a fair trial in a courtroom where the presiding judge once worked for the same office behind his discredited conviction.
This case highlights the deep-seated corruption and misconduct within the Oklahoma County DA's office. It is also a stark reminder of the need to ensure that judges remain impartial and can be trusted to uphold the law, rather than being swayed by personal relationships or biases. As one legal ethics professor notes, "appearances matter" - and in this case, Stallings' relationship with Smith has raised serious questions about her ability to preside over Glossip's retrial.
Stallings has already made a startling admission about her connection to Smith. During a closed-door proceeding, Stallings revealed that she had taken a trip with Smith in 1997, just as Glossip was being charged with murder. The trip was reportedly a vacation with colleagues from the DA's office, but Stallings downplayed its significance, saying it was simply a "hen do" - an informal gathering of friends.
However, Glossip's lawyers argue that this revelation raises concerns about Stallings' impartiality. They point out that Stallings had worked for Smith during her time at the DA's office and had even praised Smith as a formative influence. Furthermore, Stallings had presided over the evidentiary hearing in the case of Tremane Wood, who was also sentenced to death for murder, despite his lawyers' requests that she recuse herself.
Stallings has insisted that she can be impartial, but her words and actions have sparked questions about her ability to remain neutral. Defense attorney Corbin Brewster asked Stallings if she had discussed any of the cases Smith was handling at the DA's office during their trip, and she replied that it was not relevant and did not involve discussing case details.
The hearing to determine whether Stallings can preside over Glossip's retrial has been scheduled for October 30. However, with the attorney general announcing his decision to retry Glossip despite a lack of reliable evidence, concerns about the fairness of the trial have only grown. Glossip's lawyers argue that their client cannot receive a fair trial in a courtroom where the presiding judge once worked for the same office behind his discredited conviction.
This case highlights the deep-seated corruption and misconduct within the Oklahoma County DA's office. It is also a stark reminder of the need to ensure that judges remain impartial and can be trusted to uphold the law, rather than being swayed by personal relationships or biases. As one legal ethics professor notes, "appearances matter" - and in this case, Stallings' relationship with Smith has raised serious questions about her ability to preside over Glossip's retrial.
so judge susan stallings is the one presiding over glossip's retrial but she's got ties to the original prosecutor fern smith who sent glossip to death row in the first place! like, how cool is that? 
i guess it's making people question her impartiality and if she can handle the case fairly. i mean, her connection to smith is pretty strong - they even went on a trip together just before glossip was charged with murder 
especially since the attorney general announced he's gonna retry glossip despite there not being enough evidence 
. it's like, what's next? 
Guess we'll have to wait and see what happens in that hearing on October 30. Can't help but wonder if this case is a case of "he said she said" 
This whole situation is super weird, especially considering Stallings took that trip with Smith back in '97. Like, what's up with that? It's no secret they worked together at the DA's office and even liked each other, but you'd think that'd be a problem now. I mean, how can she judge Glossip when she basically knows him from back then? It's like her mind is already made up. And those lawyers are right, if there's even a hint of bias, it could ruin the trial. I just hope they figure this out before October 30, or else Glossip might get screwed. 
.
And if she can't be impartial, then maybe she shouldn't be presidin' over the trial. This whole thing just reeks of corruption and a lack of accountability 
.
. I mean, can you imagine? She's like, "Oh, yeah, we're just friends" while she's sitting on the bench deciding Glossip's fate 
. It's a classic case of "appearances matter" - Stallings' relationship with Smith has tainted her ability to preside over Glossip's retrial, and we need to hold her accountable 
.
. And don't even get me started on her past working for the DA's office and praising Smith as an influence... it just seems like too much of a coincidence to me 
.
. It's time for transparency and accountability in our courts.
. It's like they're saying "well, appearances don't matter", but when it comes down to it, they should - especially in cases where people's lives are on the line 
.
it's not just about the trip they took together, but also about her past work with smith and her previous rulings in other cases 
let's hope justice is served and glossip gets a fair shot 
. Judge Stallings has been really clear that she was just being friendly and didn't discuss any sensitive case details during their trip. And let's be real, judges have to take vacations too, right? 
They're human beings, not robots.
. She's got years of experience as a prosecutor and judge, and she's already shown herself to be capable and impartial in her decisions. Of course, no one wants to see their favorite celebrity or politician (in this case, not applicable 
) get a bad rap, but I think we need to give judges the benefit of the doubt.