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, with her appeal focusing on the introduction of irrelevant evidence at trial. The Tenth Circuit denied relief, citing a lack of clearly established federal law. The Supreme Court found that the Due Process Clause forbids the introduction of unduly prejudicial evidence that renders a trial fundamentally unfair.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Andrew v. White.
The Court held that the Due Process Clause can protect against the introduction of unduly prejudicial evidence at a criminal trial.
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 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.
-
Why Substantive Due Process is relevant to Andrew v. White
The Court's analysis involves whether the introduction of certain evidence infringes on fundamental fairness, a substantive due process concern.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The legal principle on which Andrew relies—that the Due Process Clause can in certain cases protect against the introduction of unduly prejudicial evidence at a criminal trial—was indispensable to the Court's decision in Payne v. Tennessee.
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.
A petitioner must show that the state court unreasonably applied the holdings of this Court's decisions, not mere dicta.
