The Supreme Court has stepped in to address concerns about the fairness of the trial of Brenda Evers Andrew, the only woman on Oklahoma’s death row. On Tuesday, the Court ordered the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit to take another look at whether Brenda’s rights were violated during her trial. The issue? Prosecutors focused heavily on her personal life, introducing a flood of irrelevant and embarrassing details that painted her as an immoral person in front of the jury.
Brenda was convicted of the 2001 murder of her husband, Robert Andrew, in their garage in Oklahoma City. She was shot in the arm during the incident and claimed two armed men carried out the attack. However, investigators later connected her and her lover, James Pavatt, to the crime. Pavatt, a life insurance agent and Sunday school teacher, confessed to the murder but insisted Brenda wasn’t involved. The prosecutors, however, argued that Brenda and Pavatt plotted together to kill Robert for an $800,000 life insurance payout. Both were convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.
During Brenda’s trial, the prosecution didn’t just focus on the crime. They spent a significant amount of time talking about her personal life, including her relationships, her choice of clothing, and even the type of underwear she packed for vacations. Witnesses testified about her “provocative” outfits, her behavior as a mother and wife, and even how often she had sex in her car. In their closing arguments, prosecutors displayed her thong underwear to the jury and brought up her alleged affairs from her college days. At one point, they even referenced an insulting term—”slut puppy”—that Brenda had reportedly used during an argument with her husband.
Brenda’s lawyers argued that this irrelevant evidence distracted the jury from the actual facts of the case and violated her constitutional rights. Although the prosecutors admitted some of the evidence wasn’t directly related to the crime, they claimed it didn’t affect the fairness of the trial.
The case was brought before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld Brenda’s conviction. However, one dissenting judge expressed serious concerns, saying the trial painted Brenda as “a modern Jezebel” and made it impossible for the jury to fairly consider her side of the story.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision to review the case. Thomas argued that the evidence against Brenda was overwhelming, including details of her plans with Pavatt to kill her husband and earlier suspicious incidents, such as her husband discovering his car’s brake lines had been cut. Thomas acknowledged that some of the personal details presented at trial might have been unnecessary but felt they didn’t impact the outcome of the trial.
Brenda’s case has also drawn attention to the broader issue of how Oklahoma handles death penalty cases. After a six-year pause due to botched lethal injections, the state resumed executions in 2022 and currently has 32 inmates on death row, with Brenda being the only woman. Concerns have been raised about the emotional toll on staff involved in these executions, but some state officials have brushed off those worries.
The Supreme Court’s decision brings new hope for Brenda Andrew, as her case will now be reevaluated to determine whether her trial was fair or if the focus on her personal life denied her the justice every defendant deserves.
