Oklahoma | Death Row Prisoner Brenda Andrew Seeks New Trial over Alleged Gender Bias

Brenda Andrew, a woman on Oklahoma’s death row, filed a petition April 27, 2026, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to reconsider her case, arguing that prosecutors relied on “rampant gender bias” during her trial and violated her constitutional right to a fair proceeding. 

In January 2025, “the U.S. Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision, remanded the case for consideration of whether the state’s gendered evidence was so unduly prejudicial that it rendered her trial fundamentally unfair and unconstitutional.” 

In January 2026, “a panel of Tenth Circuit judges ruled against Ms. Andrew, finding that the gendered evidence presented at trial did not undermine her right to a fair trial and ‘that a fair-minded jurist could doubt infection of the trial with unfairness.’” 

The Tenth Circuit denied habeas relief. A new position from her counsel alleges that the “panel failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s instructions and ‘disregarded weeks of prejudicial testimony that influenced jurors’ perceptions of Ms. Andrew’s credibility, her defense, and ultimately, the value of her life.’” 

Cornell Law professor and expert on gender bias in the administration of the death penalty Sandra Babcock stated, “It is inconceivable that jurors would not have been influenced by hearing prosecutors and witnesses malign and sex shame Ms. Andrew every day of her trial, particularly when it came to deciding whether her life was worth sparing.” 

During Ms. Andrew’s 2004 trial, prosecutors called a witness to testify about the clothes she wore and her previous relationships, while also questioning whether a mother would act or dress in that manner. The trial also found that James Pavatt confessed to “shooting Mr. Andrew and maintained that Ms. Andrew was not involved in her estranged husband’s death.” 

The jury referred to Ms. Andrew as a “hoochie” and “slut puppy.” Prosecutors held up personal belongings, including underwear and a thong, asking why a grieving widow would have such items in her suitcase. The jury ultimately sentenced Ms. Andrew to death. The U.S. Supreme Court noted during its 2025 ruling that “the state spent significant time at trial introducing evidence about Ms. Andrew’s sex life and about her failings as a mother and wife, of which it later conceded was irrelevant.” 

Ms. Andrew’s attorney, Jessica Sutton, stated, “The prosecution invited the jury to convict and condemn Ms. Andrew to death because she was not a ‘stereotypical’ woman — her clothing was not modest enough, her demeanor was not emotional enough, and she was not chaste enough.” 

Because Ms. Andrew did not challenge the introduction of the evidence during her state appeals, the state court could not consider evidence that was not previously introduced. As a result, the court stated that the gender stereotyping alone was not sufficient evidence to prove the trial was fundamentally unfair. 

Ms. Andrew’s attorney argues that the panel failed to appropriately consider the gender bias and allegations concerning Ms. Andrew’s personal life. Her attorney further argued that the court should have considered all of the evidence rather than only selected portions. 

Because the court relied on a 2020 ruling, it applied the same standard from “Wellmon v. Colorado Department of Corrections,” which limited the scope of what the court could review in Ms. Andrew’s case. Given that the earlier ruling affected Ms. Andrew’s case, her attorney argues that the precedent should be overturned or revised because it undermined the fairness of her trial.

Source: davisvanguard.org,  Esteban Estrada, May 9, 2026

"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."
— Oscar Wilde

Death Penalty News For a World without the Death Penalty