Dan Epps

This opinion doesn't necessarily let the prisoner go free, but nonetheless, it is a win for a prisoner. And we can talk about the specifics, but just stepping back for a second, were you as surprised as I was to just see – a case in that posture.

Yeah, this one doesn't quite look like that to me in the sense that if you just described to me the basic facts and the legal posture, I would have said I would predict most federal courts would rule for the state in that situation. So let's tell people a little bit about it. So the prisoner, habeas petitioner. Her name is Brenda Andrew.

Yeah, this one doesn't quite look like that to me in the sense that if you just described to me the basic facts and the legal posture, I would have said I would predict most federal courts would rule for the state in that situation. So let's tell people a little bit about it. So the prisoner, habeas petitioner. Her name is Brenda Andrew.

She was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering her husband. Under the facts, it appears that the actual killer that fired the fatal bullet was a man with whom she was having an affair. And the question was the scope of her involvement. It does seem like there was – evidence, some evidence supporting that, that Justice Thomas and his dissent that we'll talk about highlights.

She was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering her husband. Under the facts, it appears that the actual killer that fired the fatal bullet was a man with whom she was having an affair. And the question was the scope of her involvement. It does seem like there was – evidence, some evidence supporting that, that Justice Thomas and his dissent that we'll talk about highlights.

But at her trial, the state introduced a lot of evidence that seemed highly prejudicial and was not, at least seems to be not directly relevant to guilt or innocence. That was just designed to kind of paint her as kind of a bad woman and a bad mother. She had a lot of affairs. There was lots of evidence about

But at her trial, the state introduced a lot of evidence that seemed highly prejudicial and was not, at least seems to be not directly relevant to guilt or innocence. That was just designed to kind of paint her as kind of a bad woman and a bad mother. She had a lot of affairs. There was lots of evidence about

Her sexual conduct with various people, how many times she had sex with affair partners, where, what she was wearing, all sorts of things like that that you could imagine would inflame a jury and maybe more so a jury. No disrespect to Oklahomans, but they're probably a little bit more conservative than our audience here in California. And she's filing a due process claim.

Her sexual conduct with various people, how many times she had sex with affair partners, where, what she was wearing, all sorts of things like that that you could imagine would inflame a jury and maybe more so a jury. No disrespect to Oklahomans, but they're probably a little bit more conservative than our audience here in California. And she's filing a due process claim.

Well, the claim is that at a certain point, introducing so much irrelevant prejudicial evidence could violate due process. The thing that is interesting about this is the court had said that in a case called Payne versus Tennessee. The court here quotes this line from the opinion in the very first – from Payne in the very first opinion of this summary opinion here. Payne said, evidence –

Well, the claim is that at a certain point, introducing so much irrelevant prejudicial evidence could violate due process. The thing that is interesting about this is the court had said that in a case called Payne versus Tennessee. The court here quotes this line from the opinion in the very first – from Payne in the very first opinion of this summary opinion here. Payne said, evidence –

That it can be the case that evidence is introduced that is so unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair. When that happens, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment provides a mechanism for relief. Okay. So the court has said that 14th Amendment due process clause can provide a mechanism for relief when there's tons of really prejudicial evidence introduced. Okay.

That it can be the case that evidence is introduced that is so unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair. When that happens, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment provides a mechanism for relief. Okay. So the court has said that 14th Amendment due process clause can provide a mechanism for relief when there's tons of really prejudicial evidence introduced. Okay.

Did they say that like in an opinion really clearly providing such relief though? No.

Did they say that like in an opinion really clearly providing such relief though? No.

doesn't that seem like an overly simplistic concept of dicta? I sort of understood it to be if it was essential to the reasoning, right? If the court says – But you know it's essential if they go in the right way. Well, you know for certain. But if the court says the only reason this person is losing is because of X, Y and Z, I mean then I think it's fair to say – but this is not that, right?

doesn't that seem like an overly simplistic concept of dicta? I sort of understood it to be if it was essential to the reasoning, right? If the court says – But you know it's essential if they go in the right way. Well, you know for certain. But if the court says the only reason this person is losing is because of X, Y and Z, I mean then I think it's fair to say – but this is not that, right?

This is a case where the court – Payne, the Payne case, the court sort of said that Maybe to say it's an aside is coloring it a little bit too much. But the court there rejected a claim that – where the defendant was trying to avoid the introduction of victim impact evidence. And the court said, well, by the way, basically there's this other avenue.

This is a case where the court – Payne, the Payne case, the court sort of said that Maybe to say it's an aside is coloring it a little bit too much. But the court there rejected a claim that – where the defendant was trying to avoid the introduction of victim impact evidence. And the court said, well, by the way, basically there's this other avenue.

Yeah. And let's – for those people who are not steeped in EDPA, let's just remind people why it matters, right?