
Alex Murdaugh and Brenda Andrews
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Oklahoma Death Row Inmate Brenda Andrew – Could Set the Table for Alex Murdaugh
By James Seidel
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a rare decision Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Brenda Andrew, Oklahoma’s only woman on death row, allowing her to pursue a claim that prosecutors unfairly focused on her personal life during her trial for the 2001 murder of her estranged husband.
The Supreme Court found that the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals erred in rejecting Andrew’s argument that her 14th Amendment due process rights were violated by the prosecution’s emphasis on her sex life and personal behavior.
“The right to due process under the Constitution forbids the introduction of evidence so unduly prejudicial as to render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair,” the Supreme Court stated in an unsigned opinion. The case now returns to the appeals court for further litigation on Andrew’s habeas corpus claim.
Background on the Case
Andrew, 61, was convicted of murdering her husband, Rob Andrew, who was fatally shot with a shotgun in the garage of their former family home in Oklahoma City. Prosecutors alleged that Andrew, along with her boyfriend and alleged accomplice James Pavatt, plotted the murder to claim a life insurance payout. Pavatt is also on death row.
During the trial, prosecutors focused heavily on Andrew’s personal life, presenting evidence of her extramarital affairs, provocative clothing, and alleged sexual advances toward young men. A prosecutor even displayed thong underwear owned by Andrew, asking the jury if a “grieving widow” would wear such an item. The term “slut puppy” was allegedly used to describe Andrew, though the state disputes it was a direct reference to her.

Andrew’s attorneys argued that the prosecution’s focus on her character rather than concrete evidence was prejudicial. “The prosecutors’ case fixated on obtaining a conviction and death sentence by denigrating her character as a woman,” her lawyers stated.
How This Supreme Court Decision Could Affect the Alex Murdaugh Appeal
Alex Murdaugh’s legal team has argued to the South Carolina Supreme Court that his murder trial was fundamentally unfair, invoking the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause to challenge the inclusion of extensive evidence about his financial crimes. This constitutional protection ensures that no individual is deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and Murdaugh’s defense contends that his rights were violated when the court allowed the prosecution to introduce prejudicial evidence that overshadowed the central issue of his alleged guilt in the murders of his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul.
Specifically, the defense claims that the financial evidence, which detailed embezzlement and fraud, was presented in such overwhelming volume that it painted Murdaugh as morally corrupt, effectively influencing the jury against him. Drawing parallels to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Brenda Andrew case—where the court ruled that undue focus on personal and irrelevant details rendered the trial fundamentally unfair—Murdaugh’s legal team argues that the financial crimes were irrelevant to the charges at hand and improperly served to malign his character.
In their appeal, Murdaugh’s attorneys state, “Providing Murdaugh with the fair trial that every citizen of South Carolina would expect for himself is necessary to assure all that no one—powerful or humble, innocent or guilty, hated or beloved—is proscribed from due process and the equal protection of the law.” They further emphasize that the trial court permitted the introduction of improper character evidence and other irrelevant details that, as stated in their brief, “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Murdaugh’s appeal raises critical questions about the balance between presenting motive and ensuring fairness, echoing broader concerns about whether the scales of justice were tipped too heavily against him in a case that captivated the nation.
What the Murdaugh defense team is stating was heard loud and clear by the jury in his murder trial. Juror 785, Myra Crosby made reference to this in her new book, Because Enough is Enough. In it she wrote, “The defense argued that since Murdaugh had not actually been convicted of financial crimes yet, it was unfair and prejudicial for the prosecution to grill him about those allegations at length during a murder trial. His lawyer, Dick Harpootlian, expressed concerns that letting the state go into great detail about the financial misconduct could risk confusing or misleading the Jury about the actual murder charges at hand. Dick was 100% correct on this. As I’ve stated before out on Jury smoke breaks, they all talked about Alex. Before the financial crimes were admitted, no one on the Jury said they thought Alex was guilty. It was only after the extremely tedious and let’s be honest, boring financial testimony that many on this Jury changed its mind. After the financial crimes were allowed in, and in my opinion, wrongly allowed in, this Jury I sat on, many changed their mind on Alex’s guilt. The smoke break talk turned, and people now said things like, “Well if he can steal like that, he can certainly kill his family.” This 100% misled and confused the Jury I sat with. I said to myself, how the hell can you jump from stealing to killing your own family when he couldn’t even kill himself or put his poor dog out of its misery? “
Reaction to the Andrew Decision
Jessica Sutton, Andrew’s attorney, welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling, saying it highlights the “manipulation of irrelevant and blatantly sexist evidence” during her trial. The appeals court will now determine whether the evidence introduced was so prejudicial that it rendered her trial unfair.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond argued that there was overwhelming evidence of Andrew and Pavatt’s guilt, citing her alleged hatred for her husband and her ability to manipulate others. His office expressed disappointment with the ruling but stated it respects the court’s decision.
Dissenting Opinions
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented, with Thomas writing that the court did not adhere to its own procedural rules in allowing Andrew’s habeas corpus claim to move forward.
What’s Next for Andrew and Murdaugh?
While the contexts differ—Andrew’s case involves personal character, and Murdaugh’s revolves around financial crimes—the legal principle of ensuring a fair trial under the 14th Amendment ties them together. Both cases challenge the balance between relevant evidence and undue prejudice, making Brenda Andrew’s Supreme Court victory potentially significant for Murdaugh’s ongoing appeals.
The 10th Circuit Court will now revisit Andrew’s claim, examining whether the prosecution’s actions undermined the fairness of her trial. The outcome could have significant implications for how courts address claims of bias and prejudice in capital cases.
CC News Network will continue to follow this developing story.
Connect with CC News Network
Over 1,400,000 Million likes of Tiktok alone!
Join Our Close to 100,000 Social Media Fans:
- X: @CCNewsNetwork
- TikTok: @CCNewsNetwork
- Facebook: CC News Network
- Talk Radio: 97.7FM WVFF – airs in the Low Country
- Amazon Books: Click here to follow
- Cameo: @CC News Network
- Spotify: @CC Records
- Bluesky: @ccnewsnetwork.bsky.social
- Mastadon: @CrimeandCask
- Unnamed Network: New True Crime Drama Series