Case Explained: Andrew v. Tinsley

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-17 Docket: 5:08-CV-00832-R) The Tenth Circuit denied Brenda Evers Andrew’s petition for panel rehearing and her request for en banc rehearing, thereby affirming the denial of her federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court ruled that Andrew failed to demonstrate that the admission of irrelevant, sex-based evidence at her trial rendered the proceedings fundamentally unfair in violation of the Due Process Clause. In doing so, the panel applied the standard from *Payne v. Tennessee* and its progeny, specifically holding that relief is warranted only when evidence is “so unduly prejudicial” as to render a trial “fundamentally unfair.” The court concluded that Andrew’s challenge failed because she did not show the challenged evidence concerned central jury issues and because the evidence of guilt and aggravation was overwhelming. Additionally, the court determined that Andrew had abandoned her cumulative error claim and limited its review to ten specific testimonial passages preserved in the state court record. A dissenting judge argued that the panel’s standard improperly required irrelevant evidence to concern a central jury issue to be prejudicial, contending that such evidence is inherently prejudicial because it invites decision-making on prohibited grounds like sex stereotypes. Following this order, Andrew’s death sentence remains in effect, and the case is closed absent further Supreme Court intervention. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.