A recent decision from the U.S. Supreme Court has upended the case of an Oklahoma death row inmate who now faces the possibility of a new trial in a murder case that dates back to a 1997 murder he was convicted of arranging.

Thanks to a majority of justices on the high court, Richard Glossip, who has already seen nine execution dates and three versions of his “last meal” come and go, will have a new chance at freedom, depending on whether prosecutors move forward with a retrial, as CBS News reports.

Background of case

According to NBC News, the conviction of Glossip, which long ago placed him on death row, was thrown out on Tuesday in a 5-3 decision from the high court.

Awaiting execution since 1998, Glossip, now 62, was found guilty of orchestrating the murder of Barry Van Treese, the owner of a motel where he was working at the time.

A key matter of contention in the case was related to trial testimony given by co-defendant Justin Sneed, who asserted that Glossip had given him $10,000 to kill Van Treese.

During a second trial related to the murder, Sneed declared that he had never seen a psychiatrist, but many years later, prosecutors discovered handwritten notes in which the co-defendant's credibility as a witness was brought into question.

From there, a battle over potentially false testimony ensued, and Glossip began a fight to have his conviction -- and death sentence -- thrown out entirely, leading to subsequent legal wrangling that eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, with oral arguments having taken place back in October.

Justices toss conviction

Writing for the court's majority was Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who declared that Sneed's credibility, and the jury's assessment of it, was a pivotal turning point in Glossip's road to conviction, and the omission of information on whether he had seen a psychiatrist could not be overlooked.

“Had the prosecution corrected Sneed on the stand, his credibility plainly would have suffered. That correction would have revealed to the jury not just that Sneed was untrustworthy...but also that Sneed was willing to lie to them under oath,” she wrote.

Sotomayor continued, “Such a revelation would be significant in any case, and was especially so here where Sneed was already 'nobody's idea of a strong witness,'” adding that while Sneed's bipolar disorder was immaterial, “his willingness to lie about it to the jury was not.”

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, writing, “The court stretches the law at every turn to rule in [Glossip's] favor. At the threshold, it concocts federal jurisdiction...on the merits, it finds a due process violation based on patently immaterial testimony about a witness's medical condition.”

Going further, Thomas added, “And, for the remedy, it orders a new trial in violation of black-letter law on this Court's power to review state-court judgments.”

What comes next?

As CNN notes, the battle to toss Glossip's conviction was actually championed by a number of Republicans in his home state who typically support capital punishment, and as such, it remains to be seen whether the political or prosecutorial will even exists to conduct another trial.

Even if Glossip were to be retried, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond suggests that “under today's standard, very few prosecutors would see a death penalty,” indicating that with the Supreme Court's 5-3 ruling, the life of a defendant even Drummond does not believe is innocent has been well and truly spared.