Killer wife's wild sex life and thong underwear is paraded in court... and it could save her from death row

The only woman on death row in Oklahoma may be spared the ultimate punishment after prosecutors paraded her thong around in court and made a point about her sex life.

The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled 7 - 2 in favor of Brenda Andrew, now 61, on claims that she was sex-shamed at her trial for the 2001 murder of her husband, Rob Andrew - and ordered a lower court to reconsider her conviction, The Oklahoman reports. 

In an unsigned opinion, justices said the prosecution 'spent significant time' on evidence related to Andrew's 'sex life and about her failings as a mother and wife', much of which it later conceded was irrelevant.

'Among other things, the prosecution elicited testimony about Andrew's sexual partner's reaching back two decades; about the outfits she wore to dinner or during grocery runs; about the underwear she packed for vacation; and about how often she had sex in her car.

'In it closing argument, the prosecution again invoked these themes, including by displaying Andrew's "thong underwear" to the jury, by reminding the jury of Andrew's alleged affairs during college and by emphasizing that Andrew "had sex on [her husband] over and over and over" while "keeping a boyfriend on the side."'

Andrew had always maintained her innocence in Rob's fatal shooting on November 20, 2001, and claimed in a habeas corpus petition that the evidence presented at her trial was prejudicial and violated due process.

Her attorneys argued to the Supreme Court that prosecutors 'fixated on obtaining a conviction and death sentence by denigrating her character as a woman.

'In order to do so, the State relied on sex-based stereotypes to dehumanize and portray Ms Andrew as immoral, remorseless, deviant, dangerous and thus more likely to have committed the crime and more more deserving of the ultimate punishment.' 

As an example, they told justices a prosecutor called her a 'slut puppy' in closing arguments.

Prosecutors also showed off her underwear, which she packed for a trip to Mexico with her boyfriend, James Pavatt, just days after her estranged husband was killed.

'The grieving widow packs this to run off with her boyfriend,' the prosecutor said, according to the New York Times.  'That's enough. Can't twist the facts, folks. Can't twist the evidence.' 

The spectacle reportedly 'drew gasps from the crowded courtroom.'

But Attorney General Gentner Drummond argued that Andrew was giving the impression that she was convicted and sentenced to death because prosecutors 'convinced the jury she is a bad person.

'Nothing could be further from the truth,' he argued.

He explained that Andrew had a 'visceral hatred' of her husband and evidence of her 'ability to get men... to do her bidding was relevant.'

Instead, prosecutors tried to prove that Brenda and Pavatt coordinated the fatal shooting to get Rob's life insurance policy worth $800,000.

When he returned to the family home to pick up his son and daughter for Thanksgiving on November 20, 2001, Brenda told him a pilot light was on in the furnace.

He was then shot twice, first by Pavatt, then by Andrew, with his own 16-gauge shotgun, prosecutors claimed.

At that point, Pavatt also allegedly shot Brenda in the arm with a .22-caliber pistol to make it look like she was a victim as well.

Brenda later called police claiming she and her husband had been shot by two masked men.

Days later, Brenda and Pavatt, along with Brenda's two children, traveled to Mexico, as police investigated the shooting. 

They later uncovered evidence showing Pavatt hid in the attic f the home of Andrew's next door neighbors, and he later admitted to killing Rob to a friend - but denied that Brenda was involved. 

Still, Brenda was convicted of Rob's murder in 2004, with Pavatt convicted in the same crime a year earlier. 

Over the years, appeals court also upheld her conviction.

In 2007, judges with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals acknowledged they were 'struggling' to find any relevance to some of the sexual evidence that was presented during the trial.

Ultimately, however, it found that the evidence's introduction at trial 'was harmless due to the overwhelming evidence in this case.'

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Arlene Johnson wrote that a resentencing was warranted because prosecutors admitted evidence 'that had no purpose other than to hammer home that Brenda Andrew is a bad wife, a bad mother, a bad woman.

'I find it impossible to say with confidence that the death penalty here was not imposed as a consequence of improper evidence and argument.'

Then, in 2023, the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld her conviction and punishment in a 2 - 1 decision.

The majority acknowledged they had concerns 'about some of the "sexual and sexualizing" evidence at trial, and the use to which it was put by the government.

Judge Robert Bacharach also wrote that prosecutors focused the entire trial, from start to finish, on Andrew's sex life.

'This focus portrayed Ms Andrew as a scarlet woman, a modern Jezebel, sparking distrust of her loose morals.' 

'The drumbeat of Ms Andrew's sex life continued in closing arguments, plucking away any realistic chance that the jury would seriously consider her version of events.' 

Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented from the majority of the Supreme Court's decision on Tuesday.

Thomas complained that the majority opinion 'inaccurately portrays the State's evidence, the prosecution's closing arguments and the reasoning of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.'

He noted that Andrew described herself as a 'good mother' in her defense, according to CBS News.  

'In presenting evidence to the contrary, the State was simply rebutting a point that Andrew had placed in issue, as it clearly is entitled to do.'

'Sex and marriage were unavoidable issues at Andrew's trial and the State introduced a variety of evidence about her sexual behavior.'

Still, he noted 'not all of' the evidence was warranted, including 'the sort of outfits Andrew wore to dinner outings.' 

Andrew's attorney Jessica Sutton said she is now hopeful that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals 'will stop this injustice.

'Wielding these gendered tropes to justify a conviction and punishment of death is intolerable and poses a threat to everyone who does not follow rigid gender norms.'

Attorney Sandra Babcock also called the decision a 'historic victory for gender justice.'

Drummond's press secretary, Leslie Berger, meanwhile, said: 'We are disappointed, but respect the court's decision.'