Opinion ID: 166006
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Direct appeal and petition for federal habeas relief

Text: 33 On direct appeal, the OCCA determined that the two videos were properly used to illustrate the testimony of the expert witness. Harris, 13 P.3d at 497. The OCCA concluded that a video or computer crime scene reenactment must satisfy a three-part test to be admitted as an aid to expert witness testimony. A court should require 34 (1) that it be authenticated — the trial court should determine that it is a correct representation of the object portrayed, or that it is a fair and accurate representation of the evidence to which it relates, (2) that it is relevant, and (3) that its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, needless presentation of cumulative evidence, or unfair and harmful surprise. 35 Id. at 495 (quoting Okla. Stat. tit. 12, §§ 2401-03, 2901). In addition, the court should give an instruction, contemporaneous with the time the evidence is presented, that the exhibition represents only a re-creation of the proponent's version of the event. Id. 36 The OCCA examined the two videos under each factor. The court concluded that Mr. Bevel's testimony accurately depicted the video scenes and that the crime scene reenactments were both authenticated and relevant. The OCCA also determined that the videos' probative value was not substantially outweighed by concerns of prejudice or jury confusion. Id. at 496. In fact, the court concluded that [t]hese tapes cleared up the confusion and made the expert's testimony easier to understand. Id. 37 The OCCA next considered the jury instruction that the district court gave at the end of Mr. Bevel's testimony. The OCCA recognized that this instruction was different from its model instruction, but concluded that the instruction was nonetheless adequate given (1) vigorous cross-examination of defense counsel, (2) submitted testimony from Mr. Harris's crime scene expert that described potential weaknesses in Mr. Bevel's reenactments, and (3) the trial court's general instruction on expert testimony stating that the testimony should be given weight as the jury determines it is entitled to receive. Id. at 497. 38 The OCCA opinion explicitly addressed the introduction of video or computer scene reenactments only under the Oklahoma evidentiary rules; the OCCA did not reference any federal case law or provide analysis under a federal due process standard. Judge Chapel's dissent, however, carefully pointed out the overwhelming potential for prejudice of video reenactments and the great caution with which juries must view them. Id. at 503. 39 After the OCCA decision, Mr. Harris filed a habeas petition in federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that the introduction of the two videos denied him a fair trial. The magistrate judge recommended that Mr. Harris's petition be granted. According to the magistrate judge, de novo review was appropriate because the OCCA did not consider Mr. Harris's federal constitutional claim. When preparing the very thorough recommendation, the magistrate judge did not have the benefit of this court's recent case law concerning state-court adjudication of a federal claim. The magistrate judge further concluded: Despite the cross-examination of Bevel and the introduction of Singer's testimony, the admission of the videos, coupled with a failure to adequately instruct the jury, denied Petitioner a fundamentally fair trial, and therefore, prejudice of a constitutional magnitude occurred. Aplt's App. at 33 (Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, filed Dec. 31, 2002). 40 The district court considered the state's objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and denied Mr. Harris's petition for habeas relief. The district court first decided that the OCCA had adjudicated Mr. Harris's due process claim on the merits and determined that deference accorded under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) should apply. Under AEDPA deference, the district court determined that the OCCA's decision was not an unreasonable application of federal law. Aplt's App. at 75-78.