The case of Brenda Andrew, the only woman on Oklahoma’s death row, has sparked controversy and debate over the use of gender stereotypes in the criminal justice system. During her 2004 murder trial, prosecutors presented evidence that painted Ms. Andrew as a “bad wife, a bad mother, and a bad woman,” including showcasing her thong underwear to the jury as proof of her guilt.
The spectacle in the courtroom drew gasps from onlookers as the prosecutor, Gayland Gieger, held up the undergarment and argued that it was strong evidence of Ms. Andrew’s involvement in her husband’s murder. The jury ultimately convicted her and sentenced her to death.
Now, as Ms. Andrew’s case comes before the Supreme Court for appeal, her lawyers are arguing that gender bias infected the trial and poisoned the jury against her. They point to the presentation of evidence about her appearance, clothing, sexual practices, and mothering skills as examples of prejudicial tactics used by the prosecution.
Supporters of Ms. Andrew, including a former federal judge, have called for a review of the case, citing the introduction of inflammatory evidence about her sexuality and the portrayal of her as a “hypersexual seductress.” They argue that the use of gender stereotypes in the trial warrants a closer examination by the courts.
Critics of the prosecution’s tactics, including law professor Sandra Babcock, argue that women on trial for capital murder have long been subjected to shaming tactics based on gender biases. They question whether evidence grounded in gender stereotypes should be allowed in courtrooms, similar to the way racial bias is now viewed as unacceptable in the justice system.
As the Supreme Court considers whether to hear Ms. Andrew’s appeal, the case raises important questions about the role of gender stereotypes in criminal trials and the impact they can have on the outcome of a case. Whether courts will take a stand against the use of such tactics remains to be seen, but the debate over Brenda Andrew’s case is sure to continue.
