Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Female Death Row Inmate over Sex-Shaming Claim
The Supreme Court has issued a rare ruling in favor of a death row inmate, finding that an Oklahoma woman convicted of murdering her estranged husband can pursue a claim that prosecutors inappropriately focused on her sex life at trial.
The Ruling
The court, in a 7-2 decision, opened the door to Brenda Andrew challenging her conviction and death sentence. She is the only woman on death row in Oklahoma. The court ruled that an appeals court was wrong to conclude that Andrew’s claim that her due process rights were violated by the focus on her personal life, including treatment of her children, could not move forward.
The Case
Andrew was convicted in state court of the 2001 murder of her husband, Rob, who was shot twice with a shotgun in the garage of their former family home in Oklahoma City when he came to pick up their two children. Her alleged accomplice, James Pavatt, was also prosecuted and is currently on death row. Andrew, now 61, was herself shot in the arm during the incident.
The Treatment of Evidence
Andrew’s conviction was upheld in state court, prompting her to file a habeas corpus claim in federal court, which was also rejected. Her lawyers say that prosecutors focused on her personal life because they lacked concrete evidence connecting her to the crime. The defense team presented a range of issues at trial, including that Andrew had previously had affairs with other men, that she dressed provocatively, and that she had made sexual advances towards two young men working in her yard.
The Prosecutor’s Tactics
Toward the end of the trial, a prosecutor held up thong underwear owned by Andrew and asked the jury if a "grieving widow" would wear such an item of clothing. The prosecutor also used the term "slut puppy" to refer to Andrew, her lawyers said, although the state says the comment was not a direct reference to her.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court ruled that an appeals court was wrong to conclude that Andrew’s claim that her due process rights were violated by the focus on her personal life could not move forward. The court stated that the right to due process under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment "forbids the introduction of evidence so unduly prejudicial as to render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair."
What’s Next
The case will now return to the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for further litigation on Andrew’s habeas corpus claim.
Reactions
"We are pleased that the court looked closely at the State of Oklahoma’s manipulation of irrelevant and blatantly sexist evidence during Ms. Andrew’s trial," said Jessica Sutton, one of Andrew’s lawyers. "Now, the appeals court will ‘determine whether such evidence was so prejudicial as to render Ms. Andrew’s trial fundamentally unfair.’"
Conclusion
This landmark decision highlights the importance of ensuring that the criminal justice system is fair and impartial. The Supreme Court’s ruling is a significant victory for Brenda Andrew and a reminder of the need to protect the rights of all individuals, regardless of gender.
FAQs
- What is the basis for Brenda Andrew’s claim?
Andrew’s lawyers argue that prosecutors inappropriately focused on her sex life during her trial, violating her due process rights. - What was the outcome of the trial?
Andrew was convicted of murdering her estranged husband and is currently on death row. - What is the significance of the Supreme Court’s ruling?
The ruling opens the door for Andrew to challenge her conviction and death sentence, and highlights the need to ensure that the criminal justice system is fair and impartial. - What is the next step in the process?
The case will now return to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for further litigation on Andrew’s habeas corpus claim.
