Don Knight (2015)

I'll be happy to give Sister Helen a hug if I can ever catch her!

And the court appointed lawyers in this case were horrible. Richard Glossip should have walked out of that courtroom a free man. He didn't because of their horrible representation.

There are not a lot of similar cases. Cases of innocence in death row cases are not common. There's a lot of work to be done and with luck and help from everyone (and that means you) we can win.

Mainstream media has covered this case. It has been in the NYTimes on several occasions. CNN and MSNBC have interviewed me as well, but yes, I think it makes a great story for Dateline or 60 Minutes and I would look forward to having them cover the case as well.

No. Not other than Sneed's testimony.

No. There needs to be some kind of corroborating evidence, however, it's pretty loose as to what constitutes corroborating evidence. In this case, Richard had $1200 cash on him. The prosecutor said this came from the murder even though there was no way to show that was true, but this is what constituted the corroborating evidence that was needed.

There was a lot of work that was simply not done in the preparation of this case. Those are the facts. If those lawyers want to defend their work, I would invite them to do so.

I did not have a role in Glossip v. Gross, that was a team of lawyers dealing only with the lethal injection issue. My role has been to uncover evidence of innocence and present it to the court. The lethal injection litigation is ongoing, especially in light of what happened last Wednesday.

To answer the question about the 8th amendment, yes, I believe that all forms of state-sponsored-homicide violate the 8th amendment. After what I witnessed last Wednesday, after being with Richard and his family as we all thought he was being killed, I can tell you that it was cruel and unusual in every sense of the word.

It is a big deal and we continue to look for ways to get this information in front of a court, however, we are at a stage in the process where many issues that could have been raised in courts are time-barred.

We hope we can find a way to get this information back in front of a court and we continue to look for ways to do so.

Here: https://fundly.com/save-richard-glossip#

The amount of time that I've had. I've tried to jam what should be about 18 months of work into 3 months of work. Personally, I've had to go to Oklahoma City.

Well, Justin Sneed is doing a life sentence (albeit in a medium security facility) so it's not as if he's getting away.

As to your second question, a jury decides who is reliable and who isn't. That's the job of a good lawyer, to expose the lies of someone such as Sneed.

I was not surprised with Pope Francis. Lord knows I would hope he would be on our side. I was very happy that Richard Branson would lend his support. Who wouldn't want Richard Branson to support them?

I hope that the government in Oklahoma recognizes that the entire world was watching as they were attempting to kill an innocent man. Despite that, they still made mistakes that should never have been made. If enough people contacted her donor base and express outrage over this attempt to kill an innocent man, I believe Governor Fallin would take notice.

This case has been financed through donations made on Richard Glossip's behalf. The donations have gone for the hiring of investigators, the costs of travel, and investigation. The most important thing that people need to understand is that very few Americans can afford the cost of a death penalty trial. That is why they're almost always done by public defenders. And that's why rich people never get the death penalty.

So if Richard Glossip can be killed by the state, we can all be killed by the state--unless you're rich.

No. I believe everyone has the right to a great defense. Otherwise, we are all vulnerable.

I think what happened to Richard last Wednesday was cruel and unusual in every sense of that term. The officials did not communicate with Richard about what was happening and they did not communicate with his lawyers about what was happening. We all thought between the hours of 3 and 4 that he was being killed.

I had to tell his family that there were no more appeals and that Richard was going to be killed. Their grief was bottomless.

When we found out that there was a stay, it was literally as if Richard had risen from the dead. Of course we were all joyous, but that takes nothing away from the trauma we all felt in that hour when we knew (or thought we knew) that he was being killed by the state.

I don't know what the explanation is for the drug mixup and I'm looking forward to finding out.

The first trial was overturned on direct appeal due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, by its very nature, that trial did not count. There have been many people who have been exonerated even off of death row, who were convicted by a jury more than one time and yet these people were not guilty. It is not a stretch to have people receive trials and be found guilty and yet be innocent of the crime that they've just been convicted of. It comes down to how hard the lawyers have worked, how much money they've been given, and how much time they've had to prepare.

It's very difficult. I believe we have presented evidence of innocence, which is not easy to do. We continue to investigate and we will find more evidence and we will present that to a court.

Someone has to stand for people who have made mistakes and/or who the government is pursuing in a wrongful manner. Even though I hate wearing suits.

What was it that made you want to be a lawyer in the first place? If it was money, go with the medmal firm. There's a lot of money there. Although, there's also a lot of good work to be done in that type of practice. If you want to do good work that helps a lot of people who really need help, i.e., poor people, be a PD. And then work your ass off.

That's classic! Stephen Breyer, because he voted for a stay of execution for Richard Glossip. Also, read his dissent in Glossip V. Gross for a great discussion of why the death penalty is unconstitutional today.

Enjoy! Hurry before they make the movie!

Yes. First, we're going to continue the investigation. As we uncover more evidence of innocence, we will be going back to court, but we also believe strongly that social media has a role to play and we want this case to get out to as many people as possible.

Haha! Yes, I'm pro bono and Richard Branson parties with Bono. It sucks.

I think she's done a great job. Due to efforts like hers, I believe that lethal injection is on its way out. Doctors already do not want to perform this function, because it's against what doctors do. I believe that if we can get rid of this fallacy that the death penalty can be done cleanly and painlessly, more people would be revolted by it and it would end.

That's a tough question to answer in a short period of time.

My successes have come through really hard work. When you are asked to represent someone who will die if you're not successful, it's a terrible burden. It's the thought that my client might someday be killed that keeps me going. I never want to let that happen. And thankfully, to date, it hasn't.

We continue to investigate, we do not need a court to do that. And as we get new evidence, we will pursue the options that become available.

I think the problems that arose prior to the execution date regarding the drugs that Oklahoma had in its possession violated the protocol and were a valid reason for the stay. I hope that an honest investigation is conducted and we can all find out what actually happened with the drugs in the 48 hours leading up to the execution date.

Because of the witnesses that I've been able to find. It's not what I believe that counts, it's what I believe I could establish in court. I have great witnesses. If a jury ever heard them, Richard would be free.

That's a little too heavy for me. I don't know!

By the time I got on this case, all of Mr. Glossip's appeals had been exhausted. We needed to find and present evidence of his actual innocence in order to get back into court. Two judges on the Oklahoma court of criminal appeals, agreed that we had presented enough new evidence of his innocence to warrant a hearing. If we'd had one more judge on our side, we would be back in court and would be able to present our evidence to a judge and perhaps to a jury on a later date.

Everyone deserves a good defense. Richard's case is a great example. The crime was horrible, but Richard did not commit this crime. It was poor lawyering that put him in this position. If he'd had good lawyers at the start, we wouldn't be having this discussion now -- he would be free.

As far as the mental illness questions is concerned, it's not an excuse. Mental illness is real. It causes people to act in ways that they wouldn't if they were not mentally ill. We don't understand mental illness to the degree that we one day will.