In July 2023, legal schol­ars, a civ­il rights group, and var­i­ous orga­ni­za­tions which advo­cate for vic­tims of domes­tic and gen­der-based vio­lence filed ami­cus briefs in sup­port of two death-sen­tenced female pris­on­ers, Brenda Andrew and Brittany Holberg. Both ami­cus briefs allege that gen­der bias in their cas­es denied them fair trials.

On July 10, 2023, the Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, joined by three pro­fes­sors with exper­tise in the death penal­ty, crim­i­nal law, and women and incar­cer­a­tion, filed an ami­cus brief urg­ing the 10th Circuit Court to grant a rehear­ing en banc to review Ms. Andrew’s peti­tion for relief. Ms. Andrew, who is the only woman on Oklahoma’s death row, was sen­tenced to death in 2004 for spousal homi­cide. The brief explains that Ms. Andrew’s tri­al was taint­ed with irrel­e­vant and prej­u­di­cial evi­dence” about her appear­ance, sex­u­al­i­ty, and fit­ness as a moth­er, which the pros­e­cu­tion weaponized” to depict her as a bad wife, a bad moth­er, and a bad woman.” Amici write that the prosecution’s por­tray­al of Ms. Andrews as a hyper­sex­u­al seduc­tress and uncar­ing moth­er… deflect­ed the jury’s focus from an inquiry into Andrew’s guilt or inno­cence to a ref­er­en­dum on Andrew’s fem­i­nin­i­ty and morality.” 

On July 14, 2023, five orga­ni­za­tions for vic­tims of domes­tic and gen­der-based vio­lence filed an ami­cus brief on behalf of Brittany Holberg urg­ing the 5th Circuit Court to reverse the dis­trict court’s denial of Ms. Holberg’s peti­tion for habeas cor­pus relief. In 1998, Brittany Holberg was sen­tenced to death in Texas for the mur­der of A.B. Towery. The brief argues that Ms. Holberg’s tri­al coun­sel failed to inves­ti­gate and present evi­dence about the unre­lent­ing neglect, sex­u­al abuse, and vio­lence” that defined her life, and the proven link between child­hood sex­u­al abuse and men­tal health ill­ness­es (includ­ing addic­tion).” The authors write that the absence of this evi­dence was prej­u­di­cial because Ms. Holberg’s expe­ri­ences of repeat­ed vic­tim­iza­tion would have pro­vid­ed con­text for her alleged vio­lent behav­ior towards A.B. Towery. The prosecution’s focus on her drug use and pros­ti­tu­tion would also have been bet­ter under­stood as cop­ing mech­a­nisms for her trau­mat­ic expe­ri­ences. Without this evi­dence, the prosecution’s appeal to stereo­typ­i­cal atti­tudes about women and pros­ti­tu­tion urged the jury to believe a sto­ry about a drug-addict­ed, sex-crazed pros­ti­tute — not to see a per­son whose life was worth saving.” 

Both briefs pro­vide impor­tant infor­ma­tion for courts to con­sid­er regard­ing the last­ing effects of gen­der-based and sex­u­al vio­lence, and trau­ma. Amici argue that the fail­ure of defense coun­sel to prop­er­ly inves­ti­gate and present the trau­mat­ic expe­ri­ences of these women meant that the jury nev­er learned crit­i­cal infor­ma­tion about them that might have per­suad­ed jurors to vote for life instead of death. Conversely, they argue, the gen­der biased evi­dence that was pre­sent­ed only played to harm­ful stereo­types about how women should behave, prej­u­dic­ing the result. 

Citation Guide
Sources

Read the ami­cus briefs for Brenda Andrew and Brittany Holberg