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.