Today, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in one case:

Glossip v. Oklahoma, No. 22-7466: This criminal procedure case addresses the obligation of prosecutors to disclose information to the defendant and the effect of statutory limitations on a criminal defendant’s ability to seek post-conviction relief multiple times. The questions presented are: (1) Whether the state’s suppression of the key prosecution witness’s admission that he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness’s false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois; (2) whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims; (3) whether due process of law requires reversal where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the state no longer seeks to defend it. In granting certiorari, the Court directed the parties to address an additional question: Whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' holding that the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.