The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has issued a published opinion in *Brenda Evers Andrew v. Scott Tinsley*, a death penalty case that has drawn substantial support from women's rights organizations across the country. The appeal, filed under case number 15-6190, stems from Andrew's challenge to her death sentence while incarcerated at Oklahoma's Mabel Bassett Correctional Center.
The case represents a federal habeas corpus petition that originated in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma before reaching the Tenth Circuit on appeal. Andrew is represented by attorneys from Phillips Black, Inc., a California-based firm specializing in capital defense, along with counsel from Ridley McGreevy & Winocur in Denver.
The appeal has generated notable attention from advocacy groups focused on women's rights and criminal justice reform. More than a dozen organizations filed amicus curiae briefs supporting Andrew's position, including Legal Momentum, the Women's Law Project, and the Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice. The extensive list of amicus participants also includes academic experts and advocacy organizations such as Fair Trial Analysis, LLC, and various law professors specializing in domestic violence and criminal law.
Among the individual experts supporting Andrew's appeal are Jamie Abrams, Mary Atwell, Valena Beety, Sally Goldfarb, Leigh Goodmark, Aya Gruber, Mallika Kaur, Nancy Lemon, Cortney Lollar, Mindy Mechanic, Priscilla Ocen, Amanda Potts, and Susan Sharp. This coalition represents a diverse array of legal scholars, practitioners, and advocates with expertise in areas ranging from domestic violence law to capital punishment.
The amicus brief support comes from the prestigious law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, with attorneys from their Dallas, New York, and Washington D.C. offices contributing to the filing. Andrew LeGrand serves as counsel of record, working alongside Russ Falconer, Erin Marie Choi, Mark J. Cherry, Monica Limeng Woolley, Hayley N. Lawrence, Maya Jeyendran, and Tate Rosenblatt.
Representing the state of Oklahoma is Assistant Attorney General Jennifer L. Crabb, working under Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner F. Drummond. The state's position reflects Oklahoma's historical stance on capital punishment enforcement and its defense of death penalty convictions in federal court.
The Tenth Circuit's decision to publish the opinion indicates the court views the case as establishing important precedent or addressing significant legal questions. Published opinions carry greater precedential weight and are binding on lower courts within the circuit's jurisdiction, which includes Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico.
Andrew's case joins a growing number of capital appeals where domestic violence history and gender-based legal issues have become central to the defense strategy. The substantial amicus support suggests the case may involve questions about how courts consider evidence of domestic violence, gender bias in capital sentencing, or other issues affecting women defendants in death penalty cases.
The involvement of organizations like Legal Momentum, which focuses on advancing women's rights through litigation and advocacy, and the Women's Law Project, which works to eliminate gender bias in the legal system, indicates the case may have broader implications for how the criminal justice system treats women defendants, particularly in capital cases.
Oklahoma has historically been among the states most active in carrying out death sentences, making federal habeas corpus review particularly significant for death row inmates challenging their convictions or sentences. The state's Mabel Bassett Correctional Center, where Andrew is housed, serves as Oklahoma's primary facility for women on death row.
The case's progression through federal court reflects the complex appellate process in capital cases, where defendants typically exhaust state court appeals before filing federal habeas corpus petitions. These federal challenges often focus on constitutional violations, ineffective assistance of counsel, or other grounds that may not have been adequately addressed in state proceedings.
The Tenth Circuit's handling of this appeal will be closely watched by capital defense attorneys, prosecutors, and advocacy groups interested in how federal courts address claims involving gender, domestic violence, and capital punishment. The published nature of the opinion ensures that whatever legal principles the court establishes will guide future cases throughout the circuit.
The case underscores ongoing debates about capital punishment, particularly as applied to women defendants who may have experienced domestic violence or other gender-specific factors that advocacy groups argue are not adequately considered in traditional capital sentencing frameworks. The outcome could influence how similar cases are argued and decided in federal courts across the region.