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.
Brenda Andrew was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Oklahoma. She appealed, arguing that irrelevant evidence introduced at trial violated her due process rights. The Supreme Court found that the Due Process Clause forbids evidence that renders a trial fundamentally unfair, thus supporting Andrew's claim.
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 as to render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair.
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 Procedural Due Process is relevant to Andrew v. White
The case centers on whether the introduction of unduly 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.