Brenda Evers Andrew v. Tamika White

Legal issue Can the admission of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence violate the Due Process Clause by rendering a criminal trial fundamentally unfair?

Headnote



CRIMINAL LAW. DUE PROCESS AND EVIDENTIARY ADMISSION. The case addresses whether the admission of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence concerning the defendant's personal life at trial violated the Due Process Clause by rendering the trial fundamentally unfair, establishing a basis for relief under the Fourteenth Amendment.



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. APPLICATION OF FEDERAL LAW UNDER AEDPA. The court examines whether a legal principle, specifically that unduly prejudicial evidence can violate due process, was clearly established under federal law as required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 for granting habeas relief.



EVIDENCE LAW. PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE IN CAPITAL CASES. The judgment considers if the invalidly admitted prejudicial evidence influenced both the guilt and penalty phases of a trial to such a degree that it compromised the fundamental fairness required by due process protections.

Key Phrases Federal habeas petition. Due Process Clause. Prejudicial evidence introduction. Fundamentally unfair trial. Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.



* * *



Legal issue Can the admission of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence violate the Due Process Clause by rendering a criminal trial fundamentally unfair?

Headnote



CRIMINAL LAW. DUE PROCESS AND EVIDENTIARY ADMISSION. The case addresses whether the admission of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence concerning the defendant's personal life at trial violated the Due Process Clause by rendering the trial fundamentally unfair, establishing a basis for relief under the Fourteenth Amendment.



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. APPLICATION OF FEDERAL LAW UNDER AEDPA. The court examines whether a legal principle, specifically that unduly prejudicial evidence can violate due process, was clearly established under federal law as required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 for granting habeas relief.



EVIDENCE LAW. PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE IN CAPITAL CASES. The judgment considers if the invalidly admitted prejudicial evidence influenced both the guilt and penalty phases of a trial to such a degree that it compromised the fundamental fairness required by due process protections.

Key Phrases Federal habeas petition. Due Process Clause. Prejudicial evidence introduction. Fundamentally unfair trial. Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.

At the time of the OCCA's decision, clearly established law provided that the Due Process Clause forbids the introduction of evidence so unduly prejudicial as to render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair. This Court accordingly grants the petition for certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, vacates the judgment below, and remands the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.