Supreme Court Revives Challenge By Death Row Inmate In Oklahoma

The United States Supreme Court Building in Washington

The Supreme Court has breathed new life into a challenge brought by a death row inmate in Oklahoma, Brenda Andrew, who alleges that prosecutors engaged in 'sex-shaming' tactics during her trial. Andrew, the sole woman on death row in Oklahoma, is facing execution for the 2001 shooting death of her estranged husband.

Andrew contends that the prosecution's use of 'plainly irrelevant sexual history,' including derogatory terms like 'slut puppy' and displaying her thong to the jury, violated her due process rights and should invalidate her 2004 murder conviction.

In an unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court has directed an appeals court to reexamine whether the evidence presented against Andrew was unduly prejudicial. The Court emphasized that the Due Process Clause prohibits the introduction of evidence that could render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair.

Andrew alleges prosecutors used derogatory terms and displayed her thong to the jury.

Supreme Court revives Brenda Andrew's challenge over 'sex-shaming' tactics in her trial.

Court directs appeals court to reexamine if evidence against Andrew was unduly prejudicial.

While conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented, Andrew's legal team argued that the state unfairly portrayed her as a 'hoochie' and a bad wife and mother, relying on gender stereotypes to secure a conviction.

Supporters of Andrew assert that the criminal justice system frequently weaponizes sex stereotypes, echoing concerns raised in a previous Supreme Court ruling involving racial bias in sentencing.

Oklahoma officials maintain that the contested evidence was crucial in establishing motive and countering Andrew's defense that she was a devoted mother who would not resort to murder. Prosecutors allege that Andrew and her boyfriend orchestrated the killing of her estranged husband, Robert Andrew, before fleeing to Mexico.

Despite her co-defendant's confession to the murder, Andrew was charged and convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The state argues that the sex-based evidence is just a small part of the substantial case against her.

Andrew also claims that law enforcement interrogated her without reading her Miranda rights shortly after the shooting, further complicating the legal proceedings.

The 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals, however, ruled in favor of the state, underscoring the complexity and contentious nature of the case.