The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with an Oklahoma woman on death row who argued that extensive evidence about her “sex life” rendered her trial unfair, kicking her case back to a lower court for further proceedings in an unsigned order.
Brenda Andrew, the only woman on Oklahoma’s death row, was convicted in 2004 for the fatal shooting of her estranged husband, Rob Andrew, in the garage of their Oklahoma City home in 2001, even though her romantic partner at the time confessed to committing the shooting without her.g
Oklahoma prosecutors sought to prove she conspired with her then-partner, James Pavatt, to reap insurance proceeds from her husband’s death. To do so, they elicited racy testimony including about Andrew’s sexual partners reaching back decades, the types of outfits she wore and how often she had sex in her car. They also introduced evidence of her failings as a mother and wife.
A jury convicted Andrew and sentenced her to death. On appeal, she argued that the evidence used in her prosecution violated state law and federal due process because it was so unduly prejudicial it rendered her trial fundamentally unfair.
The Supreme Court’s majority said lower courts must now ask whether a fairminded jurist could disagree with Andrew.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the other justices, who appeared to agree that lower courts did not properly weigh whether Andrew received a fair trial. They argued that their peers, not the lower court, “deviated from settled law.”
“We have instructed lower courts to avoid framing our precedents at too high a level of generality; to carefully distinguish holdings from dicta; and to refrain from treating reserved questions as though they have already been answered,” they wrote. “The Tenth Circuit followed these rules. The Court today does not.”
