More than two decades after her conviction, death row inmate Brenda Andrew has suffered another major legal defeat, as a federal appeals court once again rejected her claim that she was effectively “sex-shamed to death” by prosecutors.
Andrew, now 62, was convicted in 2004 of murdering her husband, Rob Andrew, in a scheme prosecutors said was designed to collect an $800,000 life insurance payout with the help of her then-lover James Pavatt. Both were sentenced to death. Andrew has always maintained her innocence.
Her most recent appeal focused not on forensic evidence or witness testimony, but on the way prosecutors portrayed her sexuality at trial—arguing that gender stereotypes and sexual shaming poisoned the jury and violated her constitutional right to due process.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of the United States appeared to give that argument new life. In January 2025, a majority of justices sent Andrew’s case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, faulting it for too quickly dismissing her claim that prejudicial evidence could amount to a due process violation.
“That was wrong,” the Supreme Court said bluntly, instructing the lower court to take a harder look.
On Tuesday, the 10th Circuit did just that—and still ruled against her.
“This time, the claims have been winnowed to one,” the three-judge panel wrote: whether Andrew was denied a fair trial because prosecutors leaned on gender stereotypes and insinuations of promiscuity.
The court acknowledged the troubling nature of some trial tactics. Prosecutors described Andrew as a “controlling wife,” repeatedly emphasized her affair with Pavatt, highlighted her appearance and clothing, and even displayed underwear she packed for a trip to Mexico—asking jurors whether a “grieving widow” would wear such items.
The panel conceded much of that evidence was irrelevant. Andrew’s “provocative appearance and flirtatious behavior couldn’t rationally bear on whether she had plotted to kill her husband,” the court said, adding that her sexual history and clothing choices had no logical connection to guilt.
But acknowledgment was not enough to undo the verdict.
Despite agreeing that parts of the prosecution’s approach were improper, the court concluded that the remaining evidence of guilt was “overwhelming,” citing 24 other pieces of admissible evidence that directly implicated Andrew in the murder plot.
“On remand, Ms. Andrew hasn’t challenged the existence or strength of this evidence of guilt,” the panel noted.
The judges also drew a distinction between sexual stereotyping and demeanor evidence, ruling that testimony about how Andrew behaved after the shooting—such as a perceived lack of visible grief—could legitimately factor into a jury’s assessment.
In short, the court found that while the sex-shaming shouldn’t have happened, it did not tip the scales of justice.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch speaks in his office on Sept. 4, 2019 about his forthcoming book, “A Republic, If You Can Keep It.”
Andrew’s legal options are now narrowing. Barring an unlikely request for the full 10th Circuit to rehear the case, her only remaining path is another appeal to the Supreme Court—an uphill fight overseen initially by Neil Gorsuch, who handles emergency petitions from the circuit.
That road looks steep. Last year, Gorsuch joined a dissent by Clarence Thomas rejecting Andrew’s sex-shaming argument outright.
