Вход на сайт

Просмотр новости

Найдите то, что Вас интересует

Sex on Trial

Дата публикации: 10-07-2026 18:14:21



On January 21, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Andrew v. White that the State’s introduction of sexualizing evidence in a woman’s capital trial may violate due process. In Brenda Andrew’s case, prosecutors presented evidence about her sexual relationships, clothing, and style of underwear as proof that she was guilty of capital murder. Our research, supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation, reveals for the first time that the prosecution’s tactics in Brenda Andrew’s case were far from unique. Based on a systematic review of the trial transcripts of every woman currently on death row in the United States, we demonstrate that capital prosecutors routinely weaponize women’s sexuality in ways that are legally questionable and culturally regressive in order to secure punitive outcomes. We document cases across multiple states in which prosecutors discuss women’s bodies, underwear, intimate relationships, and sexual experiences in their capital trials as proof of their immoral and criminal mindset. In so doing, the State encourages jurors to convict and condemn women based on their violation of gendered moral codes.
We present our findings against a historical backdrop of women’s criminal prosecutions in the United States and Europe. The prosecutorial tactics we document are modern-day echoes of sex-shaming tactics commonplace in the prosecution of women for witchcraft and other offenses dating back hundreds of years. Although such tactics have been documented by historians and social scientists in isolated case studies, this paper is the first to conclude that the sexualization of women capital defendants is an ongoing and pervasive problem that undermines the quality of justice women receive. We conclude with a call for systemic reform—including legislation—to limit the ways in which prosecutors can invoke irrelevant evidence of women’s sex lives in criminal proceedings.



Основное содержимое страницы с новостью.

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

6-2026

Keywords

Sex stereotyping, Sexualizing evidence, Women on death row, Gender bias, Sex-shaming, Andrew v. White

Disciplines

Criminal Procedure | Law and Gender

Abstract

On January 21, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Andrew v. White that the State’s introduction of sexualizing evidence in a woman’s capital trial may violate due process. In Brenda Andrew’s case, prosecutors presented evidence about her sexual relationships, clothing, and style of underwear as proof that she was guilty of capital murder. Our research, supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation, reveals for the first time that the prosecution’s tactics in Brenda Andrew’s case were far from unique. Based on a systematic review of the trial transcripts of every woman currently on death row in the United States, we demonstrate that capital prosecutors routinely weaponize women’s sexuality in ways that are legally questionable and culturally regressive in order to secure punitive outcomes. We document cases across multiple states in which prosecutors discuss women’s bodies, underwear, intimate relationships, and sexual experiences in their capital trials as proof of their immoral and criminal mindset. In so doing, the State encourages jurors to convict and condemn women based on their violation of gendered moral codes.

We present our findings against a historical backdrop of women’s criminal prosecutions in the United States and Europe. The prosecutorial tactics we document are modern-day echoes of sex-shaming tactics commonplace in the prosecution of women for witchcraft and other offenses dating back hundreds of years. Although such tactics have been documented by historians and social scientists in isolated case studies, this paper is the first to conclude that the sexualization of women capital defendants is an ongoing and pervasive problem that undermines the quality of justice women receive. We conclude with a call for systemic reform—including legislation—to limit the ways in which prosecutors can invoke irrelevant evidence of women’s sex lives in criminal proceedings.

Recommended Citation

Nathalie Greenfield and Sandra L. Babcock, "Sex on Trial," 46 Columbia Journal of Gender and Law 219-294 (2026)

DOWNLOADS

Since July 10, 2026

COinS

Схожие новости

#Наименование новостиТональностьИнформативностьДата публикации
1Gendered Capital Punishment04.4910-07-2026
2Gender, Violence, and the Death Penalty04.0710-07-2026
3Transforming Indigent Appellate Advocacy07.8218-05-2026
4Sudan: Women's Groups Report Widespread Sexual Violence and Detention Across Sudan04.8702-10-2026
5Юрист Адмирэнд: случай Пайк должен повысить прозрачность казней в США09.0707-10-2026
6Brenda Mpashi v Attorney General and Anor (2024/CCZ/005) [2025] ZMCC 4 (20 February 2025): The Constitutionality of Ouster Clauses in a Democratic and Constitutional Dispensation08.6305-03-2026
7New revelations in Cornell sexual assault case spark outrage010.3401-10-2026
8Pike's botched execution renews death penalty scrutiny06.7203-10-2026
9Pike's botched execution renews death penalty scrutiny06.7203-10-2026
10Tennessee is set to execute a woman for the first time in 200 years07.5929-09-2026

Классификация: . Схожих патентов: 0. Схожих новостей: 10. Тональность: 0. Информативность: 6.96. Источник: scholarship.law.cornell.edu.