WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a uncommon ruling in favor of a demise row inmate, discovering that an Oklahoma lady convicted of murdering her estranged husband can pursue a declare that prosecutors inappropriately centered on her intercourse life at trial.
Divided 7-2, the courtroom opened the door to Brenda Andrew difficult her conviction and demise sentence. She is the one lady on demise row in Oklahoma.
The courtroom dominated an appeals courtroom was flawed to conclude that Andrew’s declare that her due course of rights have been violated by the concentrate on her private life, together with therapy of her kids, couldn’t transfer ahead.
The best to due course of underneath the Structure’s 14th Modification “forbids the introduction of proof so unduly prejudicial as to render a prison trial essentially unfair,” the Supreme Court docket mentioned in an unsigned opinion.
The case will now return to the Denver-based tenth U.S. Circuit Court docket of Appeals for additional litigation on Andrew’s habeas corpus declare.
“We’re happy that the courtroom regarded intently on the State of Oklahoma’s manipulation of irrelevant and blatantly sexist proof throughout Ms. Andrew’s trial,” mentioned Jessica Sutton, one in every of Andrew’s attorneys, in a press release.
Now, the appeals courtroom will “decide whether or not such proof was so prejudicial as to render Ms. Andrew’s trial essentially unfair,” she added.
Andrew was convicted in state courtroom of the 2001 homicide of husband Rob, who was shot twice with a shotgun within the storage of their former household dwelling in Oklahoma Metropolis when he got here to choose up their two kids.
Her alleged confederate, boyfriend James Pavatt, was additionally prosecuted and is at present on demise row. Andrew, now 61, was herself shot within the arm in the course of the incident.
Andrew’s conviction was upheld in state courtroom, prompting her to file a habeas corpus declare in federal courtroom, which was additionally rejected.
Andrew’s attorneys say prosecutors centered on her private life as a result of they lacked concrete proof connecting her to the crime
Brenda Andrew.
Among the many points raised at trial have been that Andrew beforehand had affairs with different males, that she dressed provocatively, and that she had made sexual advances in the direction of two younger males working in her yard.
Towards the top of the trial, a prosecutor held up thong underwear owned by Andrew and requested the jury if a “grieving widow” would put on such an merchandise of clothes. The prosecutor additionally used the time period “slut pet” to seek advice from Andrew, her attorneys mentioned, though the state says the remark was not a direct reference to her.
The prosecutors’ case “fixated on acquiring a conviction and demise sentence by denigrating her character as a lady,” her attorneys mentioned in courtroom papers.
Two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, disagreed with Tuesday’s ruling.
Thomas wrote in a dissenting opinion that the courtroom had not adopted its personal guidelines in figuring out whether or not a habeas corpus declare arising from a prosecution in state courts can transfer ahead.
Oklahoma Lawyer Normal Gentner Drummond mentioned in courtroom papers that there was “overwhelming proof that Andrew and Pavatt plotted the homicide” as a way to entry a life insurance coverage payout.
Andrew, he added, had a “visceral hatred” of her husband, and proof of her “capability to get males … to do her bidding” was related to the case.
“We’re disillusioned however respect the courtroom’s choice,” Drummond spokeswoman Leslie Berger mentioned in an e mail.
This text was initially printed on NBCNews.com
Source link