The U.S. Supreme Court has given new hope to Brenda Andrew, an Oklahoma woman on death row, who argues that her 2004 conviction for murdering her estranged husband was influenced by “sexist stereotyping.” The court ruled on Tuesday that Andrew’s case should be reconsidered, after she claimed that evidence presented about her sex life and revealing clothing unfairly impacted her trial.
The justices overturned a decision made by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had previously rejected Andrew’s claim that her due process rights were violated. The case will now return to the 10th Circuit, where a review will determine whether the introduction of irrelevant evidence made her trial unfair.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court criticized the prosecution for focusing heavily on Andrew’s personal life. The court noted that much of the evidence presented, including details about her clothing and behavior as a mother and wife, was later conceded by the prosecution to be irrelevant.
The key issue for the 10th Circuit will be whether the admission of this evidence was “unduly prejudicial” to Andrew, making the trial “fundamentally unfair.” The ruling also clarified the legal standard the lower court should apply when reconsidering the case.
Two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, dissented, agreeing with the 10th Circuit’s earlier decision.
Brenda Andrew was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy in the 2001 shooting death of her husband, Robert Andrew, at their Oklahoma City home. Her co-conspirator, James Pavatt, who was also sentenced to death, helped arrange a life insurance policy for Robert Andrew worth $800,000, which the prosecution argued was the motive behind the murder.
Andrew’s defense attorneys argued that the prosecution’s evidence was based on gender stereotypes, painting her as a “non-typical” woman. According to Jessica Sutton, one of Andrew’s attorneys, the evidence suggested that Andrew should be condemned because she did not conform to traditional gender expectations. Sutton stated, “The prosecution used gendered stereotypes to justify the conviction and death sentence. This is unacceptable and harmful to anyone who does not adhere to strict gender norms.”
The Oklahoma Attorney General’s office expressed disappointment with the ruling, asserting that the evidence clearly demonstrated Andrew’s involvement in the murder plot. Prosecutors argued that Andrew and Pavatt planned Robert’s killing in order to gain control of his life insurance policy.
According to court records, Andrew and Robert Andrew were separated when he was killed. Brenda Andrew claimed that two masked men shot her husband while he was attempting to help her light the furnace in their garage. She was also injured by a gunshot wound to her arm.
Following the shooting, emergency responders were unable to revive Robert Andrew, who had lost a significant amount of blood. Both Andrew and Pavatt were convicted in separate trials, with each receiving a death sentence.
Prosecutors presented several pieces of evidence during Andrew’s trial, including her revealing clothing and past affairs, to argue that she was unfit as a mother and wife. They also introduced evidence of the life insurance policy, which they said was the motive for the murder. Pavatt later confessed to committing the murder on his own, without Andrew’s direct involvement.
The Supreme Court’s ruling means that Andrew’s case will now be reconsidered, potentially leading to a new trial or a reevaluation of her sentence based on the concerns over the use of sexist stereotypes during her initial prosecution.
Read more: