Cardiff University academic’s analysis instrumental in getting woman off US death row

A Cardiff University academic’s research analysis has been instrumental in getting a woman off death row in the United States of America.

Dr Amanda Potts, a reader and associate professor in public and professional discourse, applied her expertise in analysing gender-based stereotypes of “women who kill” in legal narratives to challenge the fairness of Brenda Andrews’ trial.

Dr Potts research, combined with her co-authorship of an amicus brief, a legal document common in the US, helped to argue that the prosecution’s use of prejudicial evidence violated Andrews’ right to a fair trial.

Amicus briefs are traditionally submitted by individuals or organisations with a strong interest in a case. They provide courts with broader perspectives that may shape legal interpretations.

Dr Potts claimed that prosecutors may have violated Andrews’ right to a fair trial after they introduced lurid evidence about her sexual activities.

Brenda Andrews, 61, was convicted of first-degree murder in 2004 for shooting her estranged husband, Rob in 2001. She was at that time the only woman on Oklahoma’s death row but has maintained her innocence on the charges since her conviction.

Throughout Andrews’ trial, prosecutors introduced sex-based stereotypes, focusing on her clothing, personal relationships, and behaviour as a mother. These are all elements which some argue had no direct connection to the crime itself.

In January 2025, the US Supreme Court reversed its decision, sending the case back to the appeals court to request them to reconsider her case. This landmark ruling, covered by The New York Times, emphasised that the Constitution prohibits the use of highly prejudicial evidence that renders a trial fundamentally unfair.

Most Read

The hardest Russell group unis to get into, based on offer rate – and it’s not just Oxbridge

Now it makes sense! This is why Eliot seemed so uninterested during his MAFS Aus wedding

A ‘petite blonde’ Tim hooked up with before MAFS has spoken out, and it doesn’t look good

This ruling could set a precedent for future cases where gender biases have influenced legal outcomes. It could reinforce protections against the use of prejudicial narratives in courtrooms.

Dr Amanda Potts, whose academic research has been instrumental in this landmark ruling, said: “The Court’s opinion is historic. It sends the message that using gendered tropes to justify a conviction and death sentence is intolerable and that the Constitution provides protections for those who do not follow rigid gender norms.

“Brenda’s case will now return to the Tenth Circuit, where she will have a new opportunity to show that the sex-shaming evidence that prosecutors weaponised against her at trial was indeed so prejudicial that her trial was rendered fundamentally unfair.”

In addition to this case, Dr Potts has extensively studied the role of amicus briefs in Supreme Court rulings. She has previously written on the role of these documents in abortion cases over the last 50 years.

Feature image credit: Google Maps