
SCOTUS says death row inmate can challenge case over alleged sex shaming
By Lauren Taylor (Anchor), Roey Hadar (Producer), Bast Bramhall (Video Editor)
In a rare legal win for a death row inmate, the Supreme Court ruled that the only woman on Oklahoma’s death row can challenge her conviction. It stems from an allegation prosecutors unfairly focused on her sex life at her trial. The court ruled in a 7-2 decision that a lower court was wrong to throw out Brenda Andrew’s claim.
Media Landscape
See how news outlets across the political spectrum are covering this story. Learn moreBias Summary
- Dolor dignissim pretium dictum iaculis suspendisse ridiculus magnis nisi aliquet, risus netus augue accumsan mauris tortor class.
- Mollis dignissim turpis porttitor velit ridiculus curabitur cras urna dui, cursus suscipit feugiat habitant venenatis pellentesque sem et, donec ultricies eros amet interdum eu est arcu.
- Leo ex scelerisque nisl taciti in inceptos imperdiet sodales senectus facilisis non, orci nulla rhoncus ut sem ad interdum eros per cubilia.
- Dictumst maximus vel pulvinar blandit conubia semper leo faucibus vehicula turpis facilisi, integer consequat condimentum neque sem ultricies eu erat nec metus.
- Rhoncus vehicula cras tortor laoreet blandit aliquet quisque metus etiam et feugiat proin tellus, eget imperdiet faucibus dictumst inceptos taciti sit donec nisl lobortis mattis vulputate.
- Semper class scelerisque mauris maecenas rhoncus hendrerit pretium aliquam ullamcorper risus, lorem molestie sed facilisis tempor malesuada venenatis conubia.
Bias Comparison
Bias Distribution
Left
Right
Untracked Bias
The 61-year-old Andrew is in jail on a murder conviction. A state court convicted her of murdering her husband. He was shot twice when coming to pick up their two children.

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
Both Andrew and her boyfriend, James Pavatt, received death sentences for their roles in the case.
But now, Andrew is filing suit, claiming that prosecutors violated due process by raising extensive details about her sex life. It’s something her lawyers say distracted from a lack of evidence tying her to the crime.
The Supreme Court pointed to examples of some of that evidence when it ruled to allow Andrew’s case to proceed. The court wrote that “Among other things, the prosecution elicited testimony about Andrew’s sexual partners reaching back two decades; about the outfits she wore to dinner or during grocery runs; about the underwear she packed for vacation; and about how often she had sex in her car.”
In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that a “flood of irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence” can violate someone’s due process rights, even if the case includes properly admitted evidence.
In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “Sex and marriage were unavoidable issues at Andrew’s trial, and the State introduced a variety of evidence about her sexual behavior.”
Get up to speed on the stories leading the day every weekday morning. Sign up for the newsletter today!
Learn more about our emails. Unsubscribe anytime.
By entering your email, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.
Andrew is not off death row just yet. She now needs to make the case that prosecutors’ actions violated her rights to due process. If she loses and the state executes her, she would be just the fourth woman executed since Oklahoma became a state in 1907.
LAUREN TAYLOR: In a rare legal win for a death row inmate, the Supreme Court ruled that the only woman on Oklahoma’s death row can challenge her conviction over an allegation prosecutors unfairly focused on her sex life at her trial.
The court ruled in a 7-2 decision that a lower court was wrong to throw out Brenda Andrew’s claim.
The 61-year-old Andrew is in jail on a murder conviction. A state court convicted her of murdering her husband, who was shot twice when coming to pick up their two children.
Both Andrew and her boyfriend James Pavatt received death sentences for their roles in the case.
But now, Andrew is filing suit, claiming that prosecutors violated due process by raising extensive details about her sex life, something her lawyers say distracted from a lack of evidence tying her to the crime.
The Supreme Court pointed to examples of some of that evidence to rule in favor of allowing Andrew’s case to proceed.
The court wrote that, “among other things, the prosecution elicited testimony about Andrew’s sexual partners reaching back two decades; about the outfits she wore to dinner or during grocery runs; about the underwear she packed for vacation; and about how often she had sex in her car.”
In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that a, quote, “flood of irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence” can violate someone’s due process rights, even if the case includes properly admitted evidence.
In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “Sex and marriage were unavoidable issues at Andrew’s trial, and the State introduced a variety of evidence about her sexual behavior.”
Andrew is not off death row just yet. She will now need to make the case that prosecutors’ actions violated her rights to due process. If she loses and the state executes her, she would be just the fourth woman executed since Oklahoma became a state in 1907.
For Straight Arrow News, I’m Lauren Taylor.
And for all the latest updates on this and other top stories, download the Straight Arrow News app or visit SAN.com.
Media Landscape
See how news outlets across the political spectrum are covering this story. Learn moreBias Summary
- Hendrerit dictum adipiscing senectus varius lectus mauris gravida habitasse sem, feugiat orci eu erat molestie lacus amet.
- Conubia dictum eget quam dis mauris tristique euismod quisque mi, suspendisse lacinia et vulputate nec platea cras ultrices, arcu interdum sollicitudin proin curae praesent est venenatis.
- Elit volutpat vitae libero cursus netus etiam laoreet duis natoque facilisis felis, tortor accumsan turpis fermentum cras nostra curae sollicitudin nibh in.
- Mus blandit condimentum iaculis montes aliquam velit elit ut urna eget elementum, dignissim odio eros fames cras interdum praesent risus torquent tempus.
- Turpis urna euismod lacus viverra montes sem ex tempus at ultrices et pulvinar dolor, nascetur laoreet ut mus etiam cursus integer arcu libero sagittis mattis placerat.
- Velit amet vitae molestie himenaeos turpis nunc adipiscing vehicula imperdiet feugiat, ante sodales primis facilisis nisi consequat nec aliquam.
Bias Comparison
Bias Distribution
Left
Right
Untracked Bias
Straight to your inbox.
By entering your email, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.