Death row inmate can pursue due process appeal over sex-life evidence admitted at trial, Supreme Court says
A death row inmate can pursue a claim that her Oklahoma trial was prejudiced by the introduction of evidence about her sex life, provocative clothing and thong underwear, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday. (Image from Shutterstock)
A death row inmate can pursue a claim that her Oklahoma trial was prejudiced by the introduction of evidence about her sex life, provocative clothing and thong underwear, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
The Supreme Court ruled Jan. 21 in a per curiam opinion for Brenda Evers Andrew, who was convicted in the 2001 murder of her estranged husband, Rob Andrew. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissented.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Denver had denied relief, concluding that precedent did not allow Andrew’s claim that prejudicial evidence at trial violated her right to due process under the 14th Amendment.
But the Supreme Court said the 10th Circuit wrongly concluded that precedent on prejudicial evidence was a “pronouncement,” rather than a “holding.”
The 1991 precedent, Payne v. Tennessee, had concerned victim impact evidence in criminal cases. The Supreme Court in Payne had refused to categorically ban such evidence because the 14th Amendment’s due process clause provides protection when the evidence is so prejudicial that it makes a trial fundamentally unfair.
The due process principle that Andrew cites was “indispensable to the decision in Payne,” which means that it was a holding, the Supreme Court said.
Andrew had claimed that two armed assailants had killed her husband in the garage of their home while also shooting her in the arm, causing a superficial wound. One of the perpetrators, it turned out, was Andrew’s boyfriend, an insurance agent who confessed that he had committed the murder with a friend. The insurance agent said Andrew wasn’t involved.
Prosecutors had claimed that Andrew conspired with the boyfriend to commit the murder, so that she could collect on her husband’s $800,000 life insurance policy, which had been bought from the boyfriend. Andrew and her boyfriend left for Mexico after the murder.
Prosecutors had introduced evidence about Andrew’s sexual partners over two decades, about her extramarital affairs, about how often that she had sex in her car, about the provocative outfits that she wore, and about the thong underwear that she packed for Mexico.
On remand, the 10th Circuit should consider whether the evidence about Andrew’s sex life and her purported failings as a mother made the trial fundamentally unfair, the Supreme Court said.
In dissent, Thomas argued that the majority had elevated to clearly established law “the broadest possible interpretation of a one-sentence aside in Payne v. Tennessee.” He also said evidence of Andrew’s guilt had been overwhelming.
Publications with coverage of the decision include NBC News, Law360, Reuters, Courthouse News Service and the New York Times.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
