The U.S. Supreme Court has ordered a case review of the only woman on Oklahoma’s death row, citing concerns over the prosecution’s use of her sexual history during her trial.

Brenda Andrew, convicted in 2004 for the murder of her estranged husband Rob Andrew, argued that prosecutorial tactics, including references to her as a “slut puppy” and the display of her thong underwear during closing arguments, unfairly influenced the jury.

Why It Matters

Brenda Andrew was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree murder in the 2001 killing of her advertising executive husband in Oklahoma City.

Prosecutors alleged that Andrew and her lover, James Pavatt, lured Rob Andrew into the garage and fatally shot him with a shotgun, intending to claim his life insurance proceeds. Pavatt also received the death penalty.

What To Know

A three-judge panel at the 10th Circuit upheld Andrew’s conviction, but one dissenting judge argued that the use of irrelevant evidence rendered the trial fundamentally unfair.

Judge Arlene Johnson of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had previously made a similar critique.

Lawyers for Andrew argued that the state had a circumstantial case that it backed up by presenting evidence about “her sexual history, gender presentation, demeanor and motherhood.”

The Supreme Court’s decision does not exonerate Andrew but directs the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider her claims. In an unsigned opinion, the court noted that previous rulings under the Due Process Clause prohibit the introduction of evidence so prejudicial that it undermines a fair trial.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch in dissent, argued that the state presented “overwhelming evidence” of Andrew’s guilt and upheld her sentence.

Oklahoma officials echoed this view, maintaining that the references to Andrew’s personal life were “a drop in the ocean” of the case’s evidence.

At the 2004 trial, Andrew’s defense argued her innocence, portraying her as a devoted mother and churchgoer. Prosecutors, however, emphasized her extramarital affairs and demeanor, presenting male witnesses who described her as provocative and seductive. The trial culminated in the dramatic display of her thong before the jury, paired with descriptions of her as manipulative and immoral.

The state also highlighted Andrew’s actions following the crime, including fleeing to Mexico with Pavatt before her arrest. Despite Pavatt’s confession to the murder, police and prosecutors asserted Andrew’s involvement in orchestrating the crime, leading to her conviction.

Andrew’s attorneys contend that these tactics violated her constitutional rights. They argue that evidence irrelevant to the crime rendered the trial fundamentally unfair and cast her character, rather than her actions, as the centerpiece of the prosecution’s case.

What People Are Saying

At trial, lawyers for Andrew said: “The state invited the jury to convict and condemn Ms. Andrew to die because she was a ‘hoochie,’ was a bad mother and wife, did not cry publicly, and otherwise failed to adhere to feminine stereotypes.”

Judge Robert Bacharach wrote: “The evidence not only lacked relevance but also cast Ms. Andrew as a woman fixated on seducing nearby men.”

What Happens Next

The case now returns to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, where judges must determine whether the evidence used against Andrew meets the standard for rendering her trial fundamentally unfair.

If the appellate court upholds the conviction, Andrew’s legal options may be exhausted, leaving clemency from Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt or the parole board as her last resort.

This article includes reporting from The Associated Press.

A Wisconsin nonprofit that has spent many-an-hour lambasting Oklahoma leaders and schools for blurring the lines between church and state has hired a new regional government affairs manager from  – get this – the ranks of our own legislators.

Rep. Mickey Dollens appears to be a perfect fit for the gig, except for one little detail: the Oklahoma City Democrat plans to continue serving in the Legislature. He thinks it’s fine to advocate for the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s policy priorities while continuing to vote on legislation related to the group’s mission. 

He’ll be tasked with advocating in other states to stop legislative initiatives that attempt to expand Christian nationalism – a noble cause. 

Dollens, who was first elected to the Legislature in 2016, insists that he’s “in no way a lobbyist.” 

I’m guessing that’s because he’s aware of a pesky state ethics rule that prohibits state officers and employees from “engaging in legislative or executive lobbying.”

At first glance, lobbying seems to be exactly what he’ll be doing. Merriam-Webster defines a lobbyist as someone who “conducts activities aimed at influencing or swaying public officials and especially members of a legislative body on legislation.”

Regardless, this new alliance appears to raise really thorny ethical issues along with a troubling question about who is monitoring the side jobs our elected lawmakers accept and who gets to decide which pose clear conflicts of interest.

Because other than legislators being required to self-disclose potential financial conflicts of interest, it feels a lot like nobody is watching the hen house.

Ours is a part-time Legislature, meeting full-time February through May, so it’s not uncommon for lawmakers to hold outside jobs to supplement their annual base salary of $47,500, which is set biannually by a legislative oversight board. House and Senate leaders earn extra and legislators are also entitled to an extra $174-per-day during session to help cover the cost of accommodations and travel.  

We currently have legislators who own small businesses, work as farmers, pastors, attorneys, former teachers and insurance agents, according to the state senators’ bios, which generally contain posted, though often vague “occupation” listings to help the public understand what careers senators are pursuing outside of session. 

Voters, though, typically have no idea what jobs House members do  — unless they voluntarily disclose them or they run afoul of the law.

The state House appears to be so lax that they leave it up to legislators to police themselves and make judgment calls on whether a job or a vote is a conflict of interest.

Pardon me if I feel like that’s a flawed strategy following the unfortunate incident involving former Republican House Majority Whip Terry O’Donnell who faced criminal charges related to allegations that he misused his post to change state law to benefit his family to allow his wife to become a tag agent.

While Gentner Drummond ultimately dismissed those charges, he made it clear it wasn’t because he thought O’Donnell was necessarily blameless, but because he believed the Catoosa Republican was unfairly “targeted.” Drummond wrote at the time that a constitutional ban on lawmakers having an interest in state contracts “has not been aggressively or equally enforced.” He warned that the law will be enforced in the future. (In response to the dismissal, O’Donnell then attempted to change ethics rules to allow candidates to use campaign funds to cover attorney costs for “successful defense of an investigation or prosecution.”)

While the Ethics Commission says it’s within Dollens’ right to take a second job, officials with the watchdog point out that lawmakers are governed by a series of rules, including a lobbying prohibition, impartiality requirements, and from using their position for private gain or the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise.

Some lawmakers take those rules seriously.

Former Republican Sen. John Michael Montgomery resigned from the Legislature in 2023 to serve as the Lawton Fort Sill Chamber of Commerce president.

Rep. Amanda Swope, D-Tulsa, will resign her seat effective Jan. 28 to work as a director of tribal policy and partnership for newly elected Tulsa Mayor Monroe Nichols. Rep. Mark Vancuren, R-Owasso, also resigned recently to serve as a deputy Tulsa County commissioner.

Even Gov. Kevin Stitt has reportedly stepped away from his mortgage business during his gubernatorial term.

It’s not unusual to see lawmakers take lobbying jobs or agree to head various advocacy groups when they depart the Legislature. But to have a seated lawmaker accept a government advocacy job is outside the norm.

Dollens has been an advocate for educators and lower-income Oklahomans and been transparent with the media, including announcing that he took this role. We probably wouldn’t even know about the new gig if he hadn’t been.

It would be a loss to his constituents to see him leave the Legislature to pursue another opportunity. But if he wants to work for a nonprofit advocacy organization like the Freedom From Religion Foundation that’s probably what should happen.

And any other lawmakers that have jobs that potentially blur the lines should think about doing the same.

We can’t ignore the fact that the group is actively involved in litigation attempting to block state Superintendent Ryan Walters’ mandate to put Bibles in schools and to stop the creation of the first publicly funded religious charter school in our state. And I’m certain the group will actively lobby to block proposed legislation that seeks to post the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, and restore a Capitol granite monolith honoring those directives and any other ridiculous legislation that blurs the line between church and state.

There should be a divide between church and state. 

But there should also be a divide between advocacy work and serving in the Legislature. 

And there should be full transparency about what outside jobs our legislators are holding so voters can make their own judgment call on whether there’s a conflict of interest.

State lawmakers have filed several bills to bring sports betting to Oklahoma. Despite having 143 casinos, Oklahoma is one of just 12 states without legalized sports betting.

Voters in Missouri approved sports betting in the November election. That means Texas is now the only state surrounding Oklahoma without legalized sports wagering.

Oklahoma lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have expressed interest, but disagreements between Gov. Kevin Stitt’s office and tribes have delayed progress.

Republican state Sen. Casey Murdock has filed Senate Bill 164 to legalize sports betting. It’s similar to a bill he filed in past years, endorsed by the governor, that would offer both mobile and in-person betting.

Murdock says Oklahomans have overwhelmingly told him they want sports betting, and he says money leaves the state every day.

“I went to a conference last summer on sports betting, and a company that does the geo-fencing was explaining how all that works. And they showed me the map of Oklahoma and people on I-35 headed to Kansas trying to place bets. Every time they placed bets while still in Oklahoma, it’d pop up red. So you saw all these red dots going up I-35, and as soon as they got into Kansas, you saw massive amounts of green dots,” said Murdock.

Lawmakers, though, say no progress will be possible until the tribes—who have casino exclusivity—and the governor, who would sign any bill, come together for talks.

The Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association has said in the past it is open to conversations but wants to protect its exclusivity.

Meanwhile, some industry experts have suggested tribes may wait for a new governor to take office in 2027 before having conversations. However, those talks could move faster if Texas were to legalize sports betting before the end of Stitt’s term.

Sen. Dave Rader of Tulsa has also filed a sports betting bill this year and tells us he’s hopeful but not all that optimistic about it passing.

The legislative session starts in two weeks.