Supreme Court orders review of murder case over use of 'sexual' evidence
Brenda Andrews' lawyers say sexually charged descriptions peaked when the prosecution called her a “slut puppy” and held up a pair of her thong underwear.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed a lower court to reconsider whether an Oklahoma woman on death row for the murder of her husband got a fair trial after prosecutors used her sexual history, demeanor and even her thong underwear to convict her.
The high court threw out the decision of the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld Brenda Andrew's murder conviction despite misgivings about "sexual" evidence admitted at her 2004 trial.
In an unsigned opinion, a majority of the high court said the appeals court must consider whether a fair-minded jurist would think that the trial court's "mistaken admission of irrelevant evidence" was so egregious that Andrew did not get a fair trial or sentence.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
Andrew’s lawyers said the sexually charged descriptions used to cast her in the role of an unchaste wife peaked when the prosecution called her a “slut puppy” and held up a pair of her thong underwear, asking if it suggested a “grieving widow.”
"The prosecution invited the jury to convict and condemn Ms. Andrew to death because she was not a ‘stereotypical’ woman − her clothing was not modest enough, her demeanor was not emotional enough, and she was not chaste enough," Jessica Sutton, who represents Andrew, said in a statement praising the court's decision.
Oklahoma’s attorneys said there’s overwhelming evidence that Andrew plotted with her lover to kill Robert Andrew to benefit from his life insurance policy. Prosecutors needed to show Brenda Andrew’s visceral hatred of her husband and her ability to get men to do her bidding, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond told the Supreme Court.
'A scarlet woman, a modern Jezabel'
A divided panel of the appeals court ruled in 2023 that while Andrew’s trial “was not perfect,” it was “fundamentally fair.”
In his dissent, Judge Robert Bacharach wrote that prosecutors focused from start to finish on Andrew's sex life.
"This focus portrayed Ms. Andrew as a scarlet woman, a modern Jezebel, sparking distrust based on her loose morals," he wrote. "The drumbeat on Ms. Andrew’s sex life continued in closing argument, plucking away any realistic chance that the jury would seriously consider her version of events."
Contributing: Nolan Clay, The Oklahoman.