Andrew v. White
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Andrew v. White and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Andrew v. White.
In Andrew v. White, the Supreme Court reviewed a case where Brenda Andrew was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. She argued that the introduction of irrelevant evidence at her trial violated the Due Process Clause by making the trial fundamentally unfair. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and the Tenth Circuit denied relief, with the latter stating Andrew failed to identify clearly established federal law. The Supreme Court examined whether the Due Process Clause, as interpreted in Payne v. Tennessee, was applicable.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Andrew v. White.
The Court held that the Due Process Clause forbids the introduction of evidence so unduly prejudicial that it renders a criminal trial fundamentally unfair, and this principle was a holding of the Court in Payne v. Tennessee.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Andrew v. White. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Due Process is relevant to Andrew v. White
The case revolves around the argument that the introduction of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence violated the Due Process Clause by rendering the trial fundamentally unfair.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Andrew appealed, arguing that the introduction of irrelevant evidence at trial...was so prejudicial as to violate the Federal Due Process Clause.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Andrew v. White that support the summary and concepts above.
The Due Process Clause forbids the introduction of evidence so unduly prejudicial as to render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair.
Andrew's due process claim relied on Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808.
A petitioner must show that the state court unreasonably applied the holdings of this Court's decisions, not mere dicta.