The 2004 murder trial of Brenda Andrew in Oklahoma was marred by gender bias and stereotypes throughout, leading to her conviction and death sentence for killing her estranged husband. Prosecutors displayed her thong underwear as evidence, portraying her as a “bad wife, bad mother, and bad woman.” Her appeal argues that this display of gendered evidence was part of a strategy to paint her in a negative light to the jury, poisoning their perception of her. Gender stereotypes pervaded the trial, with references to her appearance, clothing, sexual practices, and mothering skills.
A brief in support of Ms. Andrew’s appeal highlighted the prejudicial evidence depicting her as a “hypersexual seductress” that was introduced during the trial. The Supreme Court is being urged to consider whether evidence grounded in gender stereotypes should be treated similarly to evidence tainted by racial bias. The case raises questions about the normalization of gender bias in death penalty cases and the impact it has on women facing capital murder charges. Sandra Babcock, Ms. Andrew’s representative in a related case, emphasized that shaming tactics have been endured by women on trial for capital murder for centuries.
Prosecutors defending the use of gendered evidence in Ms. Andrew’s trial have argued that it was a small part of the overall case against her and should not affect the outcome. State and federal appeals courts mostly agreed, stating that while regrettable, the evidence presented by prosecutors did not impact the case’s outcome significantly. Despite concerns expressed by judges about the sexualized evidence admitted at trial, Ms. Andrew has faced challenges in overturning her conviction and sentence in federal court.
Ms. Andrew’s boyfriend, James Pavatt, admitted to shooting her husband and claimed he acted alone. However, authorities charged both of them with capital murder, alleging that Ms. Andrew was involved in a plot to receive life insurance proceeds. Mr. Pavatt also received a death sentence and is scheduled for execution. The role of gender bias in the case has been a focal point for Ms. Andrew’s defense, with her lawyers arguing that a male defendant would not have been subjected to the same treatment or evidence in court.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit have grappled with the use of gendered evidence in Ms. Andrew’s trial but ultimately affirmed her conviction. Dissenting opinions from Judge Arlene Johnson and Judge Robert E. Bacharach highlighted concerns about the impact of the sexualized evidence on the verdict, with Judge Bacharach stating he would have overturned both her conviction and death sentence. The case has raised important questions about the intersection of gender bias and the death penalty, and whether the Supreme Court will intervene to address these issues remains to be seen.
