Brenda Andrew, the only woman on Oklahoma’s death row, just got a new chance to fight her murder conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in her favor, saying she can challenge how her personal life was used against her during her trial.
Back in 2001, Brenda was convicted of plotting and carrying out the murder of her husband, Rob Andrew, with her boyfriend, James Pavatt. Rob, an advertising executive and church deacon, was shot with a shotgun in his garage in Oklahoma City. Brenda, who had separated from Rob, claimed at the time that two masked men attacked them, wounding her in the arm and killing her husband.
Prosecutors, however, painted a very different picture. They argued that Brenda and Pavatt, an insurance agent, had killed Rob to collect his life insurance payout. Their case highlighted how Rob had recently discovered his brake lines had been cut and had told police he suspected Brenda and Pavatt were involved. After the shooting, Brenda fled to Mexico with Pavatt and her two children before being named as a suspect.
In her trial, Brenda’s personal life became a major focus. Prosecutors detailed her previous affairs, criticized her parenting, and even used her clothing, like a pair of thong underwear, to paint an unflattering picture of her character. This led to Brenda claiming that these tactics unfairly swayed the jury against her.
The Supreme Court seems to agree that this was problematic. In a 7-2 decision, the justices ruled that Brenda should have the opportunity to appeal based on her argument that this focus on her personal life violated her right to a fair trial. The court criticized the lower court for dismissing Brenda’s claims and acknowledged that much of the evidence presented by prosecutors had no relevance to the actual crime.
The case will now return to an appeals court for further review. Meanwhile, Pavatt, who confessed to a friend that he killed Rob but claimed Brenda wasn’t involved, also remains on death row after being convicted a year before Brenda.
Brenda’s lawyers have maintained that the case against her was built entirely on circumstantial evidence. Now, with this new ruling, she has a chance to argue her case once again.
