The Supreme Court said that a woman on death row in Oklahoma, Brenda Evers Andrew, might not have had a fair trial.
This is because the prosecutors used a lot of irrelevant information about her personal life to make her look bad to the jury... Continue reading here ▶
The Court ordered a lower court to review the case.
They want the lower court to decide if Brenda Andrew’s rights were violated when prosecutors spent so much time talking about her sex life, how they thought she was a bad mother and wife, and the way she dressed.
Two Supreme Court justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, disagreed with this decision. They didn’t think the evidence was a problem.
Brenda Andrew was found guilty of murdering her husband, Robert Andrew.
Her lover, James Pavatt, who was also a Sunday school teacher and insurance agent, was also convicted of the murder.
Robert Andrew was shot and killed in his garage in 2001. Brenda Andrew was also shot in the arm and told police they were attacked by two people. After her husband’s death, she and Pavatt went to Mexico. They later became suspects, and Pavatt eventually confessed to the shooting, but said Brenda Andrew wasn’t involved.
Despite this, Oklahoma tried them separately. The prosecution said Brenda Andrew and Pavatt planned the murder so she could get $800,000 from a life insurance policy. Pavatt was also convicted and sentenced to death.
Brenda Andrew argued that the irrelevant evidence used at her trial was so unfair that it violated her rights. The prosecutors admitted some of the evidence wasn’t relevant but said it didn’t violate her rights.
The Supreme Court pointed out some of the problematic evidence:
* Testimony about Brenda Andrew’s sexual partners from 20 years prior.
* Descriptions of her clothing, even everyday outfits.
* Details about her underwear and how often she had sex in her car.
* Witnesses who only testified about her clothing and whether a good mother would dress like that.
* The prosecution even showed her “thong underwear” to the jury and talked about her affairs in college. They emphasized that she had sex with her husband while having a boyfriend.
Her lawyers objected to the prosecutors calling her names like “slut puppy.”
A lower court initially ruled against Brenda Andrew, but one judge disagreed, saying the trial focused too much on her sex life to make her look bad and prevent the jury from believing her side of the story.
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, however, thought the trial was fair. Thomas said there was “overwhelming evidence” that Brenda Andrew was involved in her husband’s murder, so the evidence about her personal life didn’t make the trial unfair.
He also said some of the information was relevant to show her motive. He dismissed the “slut puppy” comment, saying the prosecutors were just repeating something said in an argument between Brenda Andrew and her husband.
Oklahoma recently started executions again after a pause. Brenda Andrew is the only woman on death row there.
