Repository Collection 03
Buncombe District Attorney Releases Statement on Supreme Court Decision
ARTICLE SOURCE ENTRY
Last Revised • July 8, 2026
This Source Verification Page documents a Mountain Xpress article publishing a statement from Buncombe County District Attorney Todd Williams following the United States Supreme Court's decision in Richard Eugene Glossip v. State of Oklahoma. The article explains Williams' participation in the prosecutors' amicus curiae brief and his views regarding prosecutorial ethics and the disclosure of exculpatory evidence. Statement of Facts D cites this source to document Williams' public statements concerning prosecutorial obligations and the importance of correcting wrongful convictions.
Related SMAR Citation
“[Mountain XPress, "Buncombe District Attorney releases statement on Supreme Court decision", 2/26/25]”
Source Name
Buncombe District Attorney Releases Statement on Supreme Court Decision
Author(s)
News Release from District Attorney Todd Williams
Publication
Mountain Xpress
Publication Date
March 2025
Verification Source
Buncombe District Attorney Releases Statement on Supreme Court Decision
Source Location
Mountain Xpress
Highlighted Pages
1 -2
Referenced in the Supplemental Motion
Page 35, Paragraph: 65
✔ Article obtained and reviewed.
✔ Relevant passages highlighted.
✔ Publicly available source
✔ Included within the Source Verification Archive
May's allegation that District Attorney Todd Williams publicly described his participation in the Richard
Glossip amicus brief as reflecting an "unwavering commitment to ethical prosecution" and expressed
concern regarding prosecutorial misconduct that undermines confidence in criminal convictions. The
Mountain Xpress article is cited to document Williams' statements that the Supreme Court's decision
addressed misconduct that has challenged the integrity of the justice system and reinforced
prosecutors' obligations regarding the disclosure of exculpatory and impeachment evidence. May
relies upon these statements to support his claim that the types of misconduct discussed in the
Glossip litigation—including the destruction of evidence, the withholding of favorable evidence, and the
presentation of false or misleading testimony—are similar to allegations raised in his own postconviction proceedings and therefore warrant judicial review.
Source Status
Cited to Support
Supporting Documents
Original Article
Link to the original article.
Highlighted Research Copy
Working research copy containing the highlighted passages cited in the Supplemental Motion.
Continue Your Research
Return to Statement of Facts D
Continue browsing the sources cited throughout Statement of Facts D.
Return to Source Verification Archive
Return to the main Source Verification Archive and explore additional sections of the Supplemental Motion.