In a dissenting opinion in the case Richard Glossip v. State of Oklahoma, 
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas extensively cited an amicus brief authored by Paul Cassell, the Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and a University Distinguished Professor of Law.
In a 5-3 ruling, the court majority overruled the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ (OCCA) conviction of Richard Glossip for his role in a 1997 murder. Glossip maintained that evidence had not been considered properly during his trial, and that he was innocent. The majority found that the trial prosecution had violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony.
Cassell represented the family members of the murder victim, Barry Van Treese, in an amicus brief submitted to the court. The family argued that evidence in Glossip’s trial had in fact been considered properly, that his trial was therefore conducted fairly, and that his conviction should stand.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with Cassell’s brief, arguing that trial evidence had been treated appropriately, and that the Supreme Court did not have authority to review the case or to overturn the OCCA’s ruling.