The only woman on death row in Oklahoma may be spared the ultimate punishment after prosecutors paraded her thong around the court and made a point about her sex life.
The United States Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Tuesday in favor of Brenda Andrew, now 61, on claims that she was ashamed of sex during her trial for the 2001 murder of her husband, Rob Andrew. The Oklahoman.
In an unsigned opinion, the justices said the prosecutor “spent considerable time” on evidence related to Andrew's “sex life and about her shortcomings as a mother and wife,” which the prosecutor later admitted was irrelevant.
“The prosecution has, among other things, elicited testimony regarding the fact that Andrew's sexual partner dates back 20 years; about the outfits she wore to dinner or while grocery shopping; about the underwear she packed for vacation; and about how often she had sex in her car.
In his closing argument, the prosecutor again invoked these themes, including showing Andrew's “thong underwear” to the jury, reminding the jury of Andrew's alleged affairs during college, and emphasizing that Andrew “had sex in college.” . [her husband] over and over again, while “keeping a boyfriend on the sidelines.”
Andrew had always maintained her innocence in Rob's fatal shooting on November 20, 2001, claiming in a habeas corpus petition that the evidence presented at her trial was prejudicial and contrary to due process.
Her lawyers argued to the Supreme Court that prosecutors were “fixated on obtaining a conviction and the death penalty by disparaging her character as a woman.”
“To do this, the state relied on sex-based stereotypes to dehumanize and portray Ms. Andrew as immoral, ruthless, deviant and dangerous, making her more likely to have committed the crime and the ultimate punishment deserves more.'
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled in favor of Brenda Andrew, now 61 (right), who claimed she was ashamed of sex during her trial for her husband's murder in 2001
Andrew was accused of fatally shooting her estranged husband, Rob Andrew, on November 20, 2001
For example, they told the judges that a prosecutor called her a “slut puppy” in closing arguments.
Prosecutors also showed her underwear, which she packed for a trip to Mexico with her boyfriend James Pavatt just days after her estranged husband was murdered.
“The grieving widow packs this up to run off with her boyfriend,” the prosecutor said, according to the New York Times. 'That's enough. I can't distort the facts, folks. I can't distort the evidence.'
The spectacle reportedly 'left the crowded courtroom gasping for breath.'
But Attorney General Gentner Drummond argued that Andrew gave the impression that she was sentenced to death because prosecutors “convinced the jury that she was a bad person.”
“Nothing could be further from the truth,” he argued.
He explained that Andrew had a “deep-seated hatred” of her husband and that evidence of her “ability to get men… to do her bidding was relevant.”
Instead, prosecutors tried to prove that Brenda and Pavatt coordinated the fatal shooting to get Rob's $800,000 life insurance policy.
Prosecutors alleged that Andrew shot Rob with his own 16-gauge shotgun
When he returned to the family home on November 20, 2001, to pick up his son and daughter for Thanksgiving, Brenda told him there was a pilot light on in the oven.
He was then shot twice, first by Pavatt and then by Andrew, with his own 16-gauge shotgun, prosecutors alleged.
At that point, Pavatt also allegedly shot Brenda in the arm with a .22-caliber pistol, making it appear as if she was also a victim.
Brenda later called the police and claimed that she and her husband had been shot by two masked men.
Days later, Brenda and Pavatt, along with Brenda's two children, traveled to Mexico while police investigated the shooting.
They later discovered evidence showing that Pavatt was hiding in the attic of Andrew's neighbor's house, and he later admitted to killing Rob to a friend, but denied that Brenda was involved.
Yet Brenda was convicted of Rob's murder in 2004, while Pavatt was convicted of the same crime a year earlier.
She was accused of planning the murder with her boyfriend, James Pavatt
Over the years, the Court of Appeal also upheld her conviction.
In 2007, judges on the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals acknowledged that they “struggled” to find any relevance in some of the sexual evidence presented at trial.
However, it ultimately concluded that the introduction of the evidence at trial was “harmless due to the overwhelming evidence in this case.”
In a dissent, Judge Arlene Johnson wrote that a conviction was warranted because prosecutors admitted evidence “that served no purpose other than to make clear that Brenda Andrew is a bad wife, a bad mother, a bad woman.”
“I find it impossible to say with certainty that the death penalty was not imposed here as a result of flawed evidence and arguments.”
Subsequently, in 2023, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld her conviction and sentence in a 2-1 decision.
The majority acknowledged that they were concerned “about some of the 'sexualized and sexualized' evidence at trial, and the government's use of it.”
Judge Robert Bacharach also wrote that prosecutors focused the entire trial, from start to finish, on Andrew's sex life.
“This focus portrayed Mrs. Andrew as a scarlet woman, a modern-day Jezebel, which created distrust of her loose morals.”
“The rhythm of Ms. Andrew's sex life continued into the closing arguments, eliminating any realistic chance that the jury would seriously consider her version of events.”
Lou Andrew, left, and her husband ER Andrew, right, parents of murder victim Rob Andrew, react with Sandy Steadman, center, after hearing the death penalty verdict handed down against their daughter-in-law, Brenda Andrew
Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented from the majority of the Supreme Court's ruling on Tuesday.
Thomas complained that the majority opinion “misrepresents the State's evidence, the prosecutor's closing arguments, and the reasoning of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.”
He noted that in his defense, Andrew described herself as a “good mother,” according to CBS News.
“By presenting evidence to the contrary, the state simply refuted a point that Andrew had questioned, as the state clearly has a right to do.”
'Sex and marriage were unavoidable issues at Andrew's trial and the state introduced a variety of evidence about her sexual conduct.'
Still, he noted that “not all” of the evidence was justified, including “the types of outfits Andrew wore on dinner outings.”
Andrew's attorney Jessica Sutton said she is now hopeful the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals will “stop this injustice.”
“Using these gendered tropes to justify a conviction and death penalty is intolerable and threatens anyone who does not adhere to rigid gender norms.”
Attorney Sandra Babcock also called the decision a “historic victory for gender justice.”
Drummond's press secretary, Leslie Berger, meanwhile, said: “We are disappointed but respect the court's decision.”
