Opinion ID: 162318
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of Videotaped Statement Given at the Crime Scene

Text: 45 Mr. Willingham objects to admission of the videotaped statement he gave at the crime scene, asserting that this reenactment of the assault was so prejudicial, demeaning and cumulative that [he] was denied a fair trial, due process of law and a reliable sentencing proceeding. Aplt. Br. at 63. On his direct appeal, the OCCA held the videotape was merely a walk through of the crime scene with [Mr. Willingham] telling his version of the events, and, as such, did not involve any identifiable error. Willingham, 947 P.2d at 1083-84. When Mr. Willingham resumed his objection on habeas, the district court noted that he did not advance any specific reasons why the videotape was inadmissible or identify what particular material contained therein could give rise to actionable prejudice. Thus, the district court summarily denied relief because Mr. Willingham had failed, as a threshold matter, to develop an argument sufficient for federal review. 46 Mr. Willingham's claim fails for both reasons identified above. On appeal, he makes no attempt to shore up the basic argumentative deficiencies noted by the district court. On the contrary, his appellate briefing is essentially a verbatim copy of the conclusory allegations presented in his habeas petition. In any event, upon review of the videotaped statement, we agree with the OCCA's description of its content; Mr. Willingham's attempt to characterize it as a provocative reenactment of the murder is sheer hyperbole.