In a decision that could reshape how biases are scrutinized in capital cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has directed a lower court to revisit the conviction of Brenda Andrew, an Oklahoma woman sentenced to death in 2004 for the murder of her estranged husband. The ruling focuses on allegations that her trial was tainted by prejudicial narratives rooted in gender stereotypes.
Andrew’s conviction stemmed from the 2001 shooting death of Robert Andrew, a crime prosecutors alleged was driven by financial motives, including an $800,000 life insurance policy arranged by her alleged co-conspirator and lover, James Pavatt. Both were convicted and sentenced to death. However, Andrew’s legal team argued that her trial unfairly leaned on irrelevant and inflammatory evidence, including testimony about her clothing choices, personal relationships, and perceived failures as a wife and mother.
The Supreme Court’s unsigned decision vacated the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals’ earlier ruling against Andrew. The case will now return to the appellate court to determine whether the inclusion of such evidence rendered her trial fundamentally unfair under clarified legal standards.
“The state spent significant time at trial introducing evidence about Andrew’s sex life and failings as a wife and mother—evidence it later admitted was irrelevant,” the court noted. The justices instructed the Tenth Circuit to assess whether a reasonable judge could disagree that the admission of such evidence undermined her right to a fair trial.
Dissenting justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch defended the original appellate ruling, describing it as “entirely correct.”
Prosecutors portrayed Andrew as a manipulative figure who sought to benefit from her husband’s death. At trial, they presented accounts of her romantic entanglements, revealing attire, and questionable conduct as a parent, framing these as central to her character and motives. Critics argue such portrayals weaponized sexist stereotypes to secure her conviction.
Defense attorney Jessica Sutton condemned the prosecution’s approach, stating, “Brenda Andrew was convicted not just for a crime, but for failing to fit rigid gender norms. This type of bias poses a threat to anyone who challenges outdated societal expectations.”
Despite the ruling, Oklahoma officials expressed disappointment. The prosecution maintains that overwhelming evidence ties Andrew and Pavatt to Robert Andrew’s murder, including forged documents and Pavatt’s confession to planning and committing the crime alone.
The forthcoming reassessment by the Tenth Circuit may not only impact Andrew’s fate but could also set a broader precedent for how gender biases are addressed in the American justice system.
