Case: Brenda Evers Andrew v. Tamika White, Warden, No. 23-6573
Lower Court: Tenth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-01-25
Status: GVR
Question Presented: 1. Whether clearly established federal law as determined by this Court forbids the prosecution's use of a woman's plainly irrelevant sexual history, gender presentation, and role as a mother and wife to assess guilt and punishment. 2. Whether this Court should summarily reverse in light of cumulative effect of the errors in this case at guilt and sentencing, including the introduction of a custodial statement made without the warnings Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) requires.
On January 21, 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Tenth Circuit’s judgment, and remanded Brenda Evers Andrew v. Tamika White, Warden for further proceedings. The GVR order, issued without full briefing or oral argument, directed the Tenth Circuit to reconsider the case in light of an unspecified intervening authority. The case had been distributed for conference an unusually high 23 times before the Court acted, suggesting sustained internal deliberation over whether and how to intervene.
Brenda Andrew was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Oklahoma. At trial, prosecutors introduced evidence of her sexual history, her manner of dress, and her perceived failures as a wife and mother. A custodial statement obtained without Miranda warnings was also admitted. The Tenth Circuit denied habeas relief, and Andrew sought certiorari with support from three amicus briefs. Petitioner was represented by John Robert Mills; the respondent by Joshua Luke Lockett.
The two questions presented frame distinct but related concerns. The first asks whether clearly established federal law prohibits using a woman’s sexual conduct and gender presentation as evidence of guilt. The second raises cumulative-error doctrine alongside the Miranda violation. As SCOTUSBlog has noted, GVRs after extensive conferencing often signal that at least some Justices viewed the lower court’s analysis as requiring correction in light of recent precedent.
The case raises questions that scholars writing in publications such as the Harvard Law Review have explored regarding sex-based stereotyping in criminal proceedings and its compatibility with due process. The Tenth Circuit’s treatment of the cumulative-error and gender-bias claims on remand will be worth watching closely, particularly in the context of capital sentencing.