On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of the United States reinstated a significant legal challenge put forth by Brenda Andrew, a death row inmate in Oklahoma. The case centers around allegations that prosecutors engaged in sexual shaming during her trial. Notably, the prosecution reportedly referred to Andrew using derogatory terms, including “slut puppy,” and even displayed a thong in front of the jury. Such actions are raising serious questions about the fairness of her trial and the treatment she received during the legal process.
Brenda Andrew has been on death row since her conviction in 2004 for the murder of her estranged husband, Robert Andrew. The shooting incident took place in 2001, which led to her and her boyfriend allegedly luring Robert into a garage where he was fatally shot with two shotgun blasts. Andrew’s defense throughout her trial maintained that she was a dedicated mother, arguing that she would never commit such an act against the father of her children. In her appeal to the Supreme Court, Andrew contends that the prosecution’s strategy of utilizing her sexual history was not only irrelevant but also a blatant violation of her due process rights. She argues that any conviction based on prejudicial sexual references should be viewed as fundamentally unfair and thus should invalidate her prior conviction.
In an unsigned opinion released on the day of the ruling, the Supreme Court opted to send Andrew’s case back to an appellate court for further examination regarding the prejudicial nature of the evidence presented against her. According to established legal principles, the Due Process Clause prohibits introducing evidence that is so prejudicial that it compromises a defendant’s right to a fair trial. Despite the grave implications of Andrew’s situation, it is important to note that two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, were dissenting in the Court’s decision, signaling a complexity within the judicial interpretations at play concerning gender and sexual stereotypes in legal proceedings.
Andrew’s lawyers assert that prosecutors weaponized gender stereotypes during the trial, framing Andrew as a “hoochie,” a bad mother, and a poor wife—all aspects aimed to manipulate the jury’s perception of her character. The defense argues that this strategy drastically undermined the fairness of the trial and tapped into disturbing societal issues surrounding how women, particularly in the criminal justice system, are often portrayed based on their gender and sexuality.
In a decision made in 2017 regarding the case of a Black death row inmate, the Supreme Court ruled against the use of race-based evidence that unfairly influenced the jury’s decision. Attorneys for Andrew draw parallels between that ruling and her case, arguing that the inherent bias against women during her trial should be similarly scrutinized. The state, however, argues that the references to her sexual history served a purpose in terms of establishing a motive for her actions, attempting to counter claims made by her defense about her character.
Further complicating the narrative is the involvement of Andrew’s co-defendant, James Pavatt, who has admitted to committing the murder. Despite his confession, Andrew has faced charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, due to suspicions of her involvement in orchestrating the crime. The courts, including a divided ruling from the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals, have until now sided with the state’s position regarding the admissibility of the contested evidence.
Additionally, Andrew has claimed that police authorities conducted questionable practices, such as questioning her without providing a Miranda warning immediately after the traumatic events of the shooting. This pattern of questionable legal procedure adds another layer to the ongoing discourse surrounding her conviction and the conduct of law enforcement throughout the case. As this complex legal battle continues, it sets a precedent for how gender biases and prejudicial evidence are treated within the judicial system, especially in cases involving the death penalty.
