FOLLOW US

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday revived the appeal of Brenda Evers Andrew, an Oklahoma death row inmate, who claims that prosecutors violated her due process rights by using sexist stereotypes and prejudicial evidence during her trial for the 2001 murder of her estranged husband.

In a per curiam opinion, the justices vacated a Tenth Circuit decision upholding Andrew’s conviction and death sentence. The court found that, at the time Oklahoma upheld her conviction, established law barred the introduction of evidence so prejudicial it rendered a trial fundamentally unfair under the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.

Sexist Arguments and Evidence at Trial

Andrew, convicted of murdering her husband Robert Andrew to collect his life insurance policy, argues that the prosecution unfairly focused on her dating history, appearance, and parenting style. Prosecutors allegedly used derogatory language, such as calling her a “slut puppy” and criticizing her clothing and hairstyle, to paint her as immoral.

In closing arguments, the prosecution presented a pair of thong underwear from Andrew’s suitcase, asking whether a “grieving widow” would wear such an item. Andrew contends this spectacle amounted to a “Hawthorne-inspired public shaming,” distracting the jury with irrelevant and inflammatory evidence.

Her petition criticized the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and the Tenth Circuit for dismissing these claims, arguing the evidence and arguments undermined her right to a fair trial.

Supreme Court’s Rationale

The majority opinion referenced Payne v. Tennessee, the court’s 1991 ruling allowing victim impact statements in sentencing phases, but reaffirmed that evidence so harmful as to make a trial fundamentally unfair is barred. Andrew’s petition argued the Tenth Circuit failed to consider the cumulative harm of the state’s tactics.

"Convicting and condemning a woman to death because her clothing, appearance, demeanor, and sexual history do not comport with stereotypes of womanhood is 'odious in all aspects [and] especially pernicious in the administration of justice,'" the petition stated.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented, criticizing the majority for overriding the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which limits federal court intervention in state convictions.

Oklahoma’s Defense

Oklahoma Department of Corrections Warden Tamika White, in a brief to the Supreme Court, argued that Andrew introduced new claims in her petition that had not been addressed by lower courts. White urged the justices to deny review, asserting that state courts should have the first opportunity to resolve such claims.

“These considerations ... should cause this court serious concern that any review of Andrew's case would violate the principle that state courts are to be given a full and fair opportunity to resolve a federal constitutional claim,” White argued.

Representation

Andrew is represented by attorneys from Phillips Black Inc., Ridley McGreevy & Winocur PC, and King & Spalding LLP. The Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office represents Warden Tamika White.

The case now returns to the lower courts for reconsideration under the Supreme Court’s guidance.