The U.S. Supreme Court granted a new hearing to Brenda Andrew, an Oklahoma woman on death row for the 2001 murder of her husband. The Court's decision stems from Andrew's claim that her trial was unfairly prejudiced by the introduction of irrelevant and inflammatory evidence about her personal life.

American University Washington College of Law Professor Jamie Abrams helped write an amicus brief that was instrumental in helping the Supreme Court reach a decision. 

“I was really motivated to participate in this amicus brief because the legal issue on appeal sat precisely at the intersection of intimate partner violence, gender discrimination, and legal rhetoric,” said Abrams. “The record suggested that the prosecution had exploited problematic archetypes about what a "good mother" or a "good wife" is in seeking the death penalty. The idea that a defendant's prior sexual partners, sexual activity, or clothing worn to the grocery store had any relevance to the gravity of a death penalty determination, was extraordinarily regressive and deeply shocking.”

Andrew was convicted of conspiring with her lover, James Pavatt, to murder her husband, Rob Andrew. Prosecutors presented extensive evidence during the trial about Andrew's personal life, including her relationships and attire, which she argued was irrelevant to the crime and designed to unfairly sway the jury.

“It seemed that the jury had erroneously condemned Brenda Andrew to death for their perceptions of her deviance as a woman. The issues raised in the amicus brief aligned with prior research that I had done on women's acts of violence,” Abrams added.

The Supreme Court's order directs a lower court to re-examine whether the introduction of this "irrelevant and prejudicial" evidence violated Andrew's right to a fair trial under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
This case raises significant legal questions about the permissible scope of evidence in capital punishment cases and the potential for personal information to unfairly influence a jury's verdict.

“The brief brought together professors and advocates to show the Supreme Court that this was about more than one defendant. It was about the very integrity of the jury process and the rights of defendants to a jury trial free from gender discrimination,” said Abrams.

The amicus brief, which was previously profiled by the N.Y. Times, played a pivotal role in bringing this crucial issue of gender bias in capital punishment cases to the attention of the Supreme Court.