Why the Supreme Court ordered a new review in Brenda Andrew case, the only woman on Oklahoma’s death row

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision regarding Brenda Andrew, the only woman on death row in Oklahoma.

In a 7-2 decision, the Court vacated a lower court's ruling on Tuesday and ordered a new review of her claims. Andrew was convicted of orchestrating the murder of her husband, Rob Andrew, in 2001 with the help of her lover, James Pavatt, as part of a plot to collect on a life insurance policy.

Both Andrew and Pavatt were sentenced to death in 2004.

Why The Supreme Court Granted Brenda Andrew A New Hearing

The court’s decision is in response to Andrew's claim that her trial was not fair because prosecutors introduced "irrelevant and prejudicial" evidence. Specifically, she argued that testimony focusing on her private life, including relationships and personal attire, was unduly prejudicial and irrelevant to her guilt or sentence.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects defendants from the evidence so prejudicial that it renders a trial "fundamentally unfair"

"An Oklahoma jury convicted Brenda Andrew of murdering her husband, Rob Andrew, and sentenced her to death. The State spent significant time at trial introducing evidence about Andrew’s sex life and about her failings as a mother and wife, much of which it later conceded was irrelevant. In a federal habeas petition, Andrew argued that this evidence had been so prejudicial as to violate the Due Process Clause. The Court of Appeals rejected that claim because, it thought, no holding of this Court established a general rule that the erroneous admission of prejudicial evidence could violate due process. That was wrong. By the time of Andrew’s trial, this Court had made clear that when “evidence is introduced that is so unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a mechanism for relief,” - Supreme Court's per curiam opinion.

Justice Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the majority opinion, arguing that the evidence against Andrew was overwhelming and that the state court's decision should have been upheld.

The Tenth Circuit is ordered to review Andrew's claims.