On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brenda Andrew, an Oklahoma woman on death row, who claimed that sexist stereotyping played a part in her 2004 conviction for murdering her estranged husband. The court’s decision could reopen her case, which centers on the use of evidence related to her sex life and attire.
The justices overruled a prior ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had dismissed Andrew’s claim that the prosecution’s evidence violated her right to due process. The case will now return to the 10th Circuit to examine whether the evidence presented at trial made the proceedings unfair.
The Supreme Court criticized the prosecution for introducing evidence about Andrew’s personal life, including details of her sex life and her role as a wife and mother. Much of this evidence was later admitted as irrelevant.
The court’s ruling emphasized that the 10th Circuit must decide if the use of this evidence was so prejudicial that it made Andrew’s trial “fundamentally unfair.” The ruling clarified the legal standard the 10th Circuit should apply.
In dissent, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch argued that the 10th Circuit’s decision was correct.
Brenda Andrew was convicted in 2004 of first-degree murder and conspiracy for the 2001 killing of her husband, Robert Andrew, at their home in Oklahoma City. Her co-defendant, James Pavatt, was also convicted and sentenced to death. Andrew’s lawyers argued that the evidence presented at trial was unfairly biased and played into harmful gender stereotypes, portraying her as a “non-stereotypical” woman because of her appearance and behavior.
Andrew’s attorney, Jessica Sutton, expressed hope that the 10th Circuit would recognize the injustice. Sutton said the prosecution used gendered stereotypes to sway the jury against Andrew, noting that her clothing, demeanor, and emotional response were scrutinized.
The Oklahoma Attorney General’s office expressed disappointment in the Supreme Court’s decision, maintaining that the evidence against Andrew was valid and substantial.
Prosecutors had argued that Andrew sought to profit from her husband’s $800,000 life insurance policy, which was arranged by Pavatt. Andrew has always denied involvement in the murder.
The case centers on a tragic event in 2001 when Brenda and Robert Andrew were separated. Andrew claimed that while her husband tried to light a furnace, two masked men entered their home and shot him. Andrew was injured but survived. Emergency responders were unable to save Robert Andrew.
Andrew and Pavatt were convicted in separate trials for conspiring to murder Robert Andrew. The prosecution argued that the murder was planned to collect on the life insurance policy. However, the defense attempted to show that Andrew was a devoted mother and wife.
At trial, prosecutors introduced evidence that Andrew had worn revealing clothing and had several extramarital affairs. They also presented testimony about her relationship with Pavatt and alleged attempts to conceal her activities from her children.
The case continues to raise questions about the role of gendered stereotypes in legal proceedings, with this ruling providing a potential opportunity for Andrew to challenge her conviction.
Read more: