Brenda Andrew, the only woman currently on death row in Oklahoma, is pinning her hopes on U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch to potentially spare her life.

Back in 2004, Andrew, now 62, was convicted for the murder of her husband, Rob Andrew, who was 39 at the time. Prosecutors argued that the crime was orchestrated in conjunction with her then-lover, James Pavatt, now 72, in a bid to cash in on an $800,000 life insurance policy. Both Andrew and Pavatt received death sentences.

Throughout the legal proceedings, Andrew has consistently proclaimed her innocence. Her defense team has pursued a unique angle in their appeals, asserting that she was unfairly “sex-shamed” during her trial.

According to the Cornell Law School’s Center on the Death Penalty, the trial featured testimony from male witnesses who painted Andrew as a promiscuous woman. This included statements about her clothing choices, such as one man’s remark on her wearing a “tight, short” dress that revealed “a lot of cleavage,” and another’s commentary on her “sexy,” “provocative” outfits.

In January 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court provided Andrew with a temporary reprieve by agreeing to consider her argument that her sexual history was inappropriately scrutinized, violating her constitutional right to due process.

The justices have instructed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit to reevaluate the case for any constitutional violations, after the lower court had previously dismissed Andrew’s claims.

“The Court of Appeals rejected that claim because, it thought, no holding of this Court established a general rule that the erroneous admission of prejudicial evidence could violate due process,” the per curiam opinion reads. “That was wrong.”

On Tuesday, the appellate court again rejected Andrew’s claim.

“We are addressing this appeal for the second time,” the court ruled. “The first time, Ms. Andrew presented multiple claims. This time, the claims have been winnowed to one: the denial of a fair trial based on evidence of a gender stereotype and promiscuity.”

The three-judge panel identified some of the more controversial claims made by prosecutors, which formed the basis of the appeal:

In its opening statement, for example, the prosecution told that jury that “this case is about a controlling wife.” In closing argument, the prosecution discussed Ms. Andrew’s sex life and demeanor, calling her “an attractive woman” who had cheated with Mr. Pavatt for months and who had “failed to express sorrow when questioned by the police after the shooting.” The prosecution then displayed a pair of underwear from a suitcase that Ms. Andrew had taken to Mexico, asking if a “grieving widow” would wear “this.”

While acknowledging that some of the evidence presented by the state was “irrelevant,” the panel found the remainder of the state’s evidence against Andrew to be “overwhelming.”

“Andrew’s provocative appearance and flirtatious behavior couldn’t rationally bear on whether she had plotted to kill her husband,” the court mused, also finding evidence of prior affairs and her choice of packed underwear on a trip not germane to her guilt or innocence.

Meanwhile, the panel said “evidence of demeanor could bear on guilt,” a reference to how Andrew acted immediately after the shooting.

Taking the entirety of the sex-shaming claims into account — and largely agreeing with Andrew that those claims should not have been made — the appeals court quickly dispensed with their impact on the jury trial itself, saying the state offered 24 other proper pieces of evidence directly bearing on her guilt.

“On remand, Ms. Andrew hasn’t challenged the existence or strength of this evidence of guilt,” the appeals court noted.

Notably, however, Andrew did attempt to address some of those claims in a supplemental briefing, the court explains in a footnote. But those arguments are again tersely dismissed because “the Supreme Court’s opinion did not address these claims and Ms. Andrew hasn’t argued that they remain viable on remand.”

Now, barring a request for en banc review — which would be highly unusual, though not impossible — Andrew will have to place her fate in the Supreme Court once again. That battle starts with Gorsuch, who handles petitions for writs of certiorari from the 10th Circuit.

And such an effort is likely to be an uphill climb.

Last year, while a majority of the justices saw some merit in Andrew’s sex-shaming claim, Gorsuch signed onto a dissent authored by Justice Clarence Thomas that flatly rejected the argument.