A historic Supreme Court ruling on Tuesday challenges the fate of Oklahoma's only female death row inmate, Brenda Andrew, with Justice Clarence Thomas expressing strong disagreement.
According to Newsweek, the Supreme Court has overturned a lower court's opinion regarding prejudicial evidence in Andrew's murder case, marking the first time it has reversed such a ruling under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).
The case centers on Andrew's conviction for the 2001 capital murder of her husband, Robert Andrew. She challenged her conviction based on the admission of what she deemed prejudicial evidence about her personal life, including testimony about her provocative attire and extramarital relationships.
The Court's decision relies heavily on the precedent set by Payne v. Tennessee, which addresses the constitutional implications of prejudicial evidence in criminal trials.
This ruling specifically challenges the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' (OCCA) finding that supported the admission of controversial evidence during Andrew's trial.
In his dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, Thomas expressed concern about the potential consequences of this decision. He argued that the ruling could lead to misapplication of AEDPA principles.
Supreme Court Justice Thomas warned against framing precedents too broadly, stating:
However, the Court turns this approach on its head, steamrolling settled AEDPA principles to set aside an entirely correct Tenth Circuit decision. I respectfully dissent.
Oklahoma maintains its position as the state with the highest per capita execution rate in the United States. Currently, 32 inmates occupy death row cells in Oklahoma's correctional facilities, with Andrew standing as the sole female among them.
The state's commitment to capital punishment places it among 27 states that still maintain the death penalty. While some states like California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Oregon have gubernatorial holds on executions, Oklahoma continues to actively pursue capital cases.
James Pavatt, who was also charged in the case, had confessed to committing the shooting with an accomplice. Despite his statement that Andrew was not involved, both were charged with capital murder.
The Supreme Court's majority emphasized the established legal principle regarding due process violations. The Court stated:
At the time of the OCCA's decision, clearly established law provided that the Due Process Clause forbids the introduction of evidence so unduly prejudicial as to render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair.
The ruling effectively vacates the lower court's judgment, requiring further proceedings to address the constitutional concerns raised about the evidence presented during Andrew's trial. This development could potentially influence similar cases involving disputed evidence in capital trials.
Final proceedings will determine whether the controversial evidence introduced during Andrew's trial violated her constitutional rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
