Opinion ID: 4562033
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Phillips’s Trial

Text: Phillips was tried in the Laurel Circuit Court on June 2 and 3, 2009. Phillips, 2010 WL 2471669, at . Prior to his trial, Phillips moved for the discovery of Brady evidence, including for ‘[a]ny results or reports of physical or mental examinations, and of scientific tests or experiments’ concerning the deceased.” The trial court ordered Brady discovery. The state turned over its autopsy report and several color photographs, but not the X-ray in question in this appeal. At trial, the Commonwealth called Dr. Jennifer Schott, the then-state medical examiner who had performed the autopsy. The Commonwealth also showed the jury postmortem photographs of the back of Glodo’s head, which, as the prosecutor put it when arguing for admission, “show[] a central location of the wound between -- you see both ears in the photo.” Dr. Schott was directly examined on these photographs as they were shown to the jury. She agreed that it showed that Glodo was shot “in the back of the head” and told the jury that the wound was 5 Case No. 18-6184, Phillips v. Valentine “in the middle” (as opposed to on the “right-hand side [or] the left-hand side”). She also explained that a photo in which Glodo’s hair had been shaved post-mortem showed markings around the wound (“satellite lesions”) that indicated the spread of shotgun pellets, as the shot moved further from the mouth of the gun. This in turn indicated, she argued, that the end of the gun was “three feet or more” from Glodo’s head, though she caveated that “for a definitive answer, you would need a firearms examiner.”4 (The state did produce a firearms examiner, Gareth Deskins, but not to testify to this point; rather, he testified that the shotgun used in the shooting had a normal triggerpull weight and a functioning safety, thus rebutting any suggestion that the gun accidentally discharged.) Dr. Schott testified to the direction from which the shot had been fired: Q Clarifying, you said you also examined the back of his head, correct. A The pellets entered the back of his head. Q Pellets. Not bullet. Pellets entered the back of his head. Did you recover some of those pellets? A Yes. I did. Q And where’d you recover them from? A From the inside of the head. Q Okay. And that would lead us to believe -- that would lead you to believe that the direction of the pellets' track? A In general, the direction was back to front. Q Meaning the back of Mr. Glodo’s head to the front? A Yes. In addition to this physical evidence, the state introduced evidence of the inconsistencies of Phillips’s story on the night of the shooting—mainly his switching back and forth between 4 Somewhat incongruously, the Kentucky Court of Appeals, in Phillips’s 2012 collateral attack on insufficient assistance of counsel, took a different view: Dr. Schott clearly stated she was not a firearms examiner; however, she testified that she had performed approximately 1200 autopsies as a medical examiner. Dr. Schott performed an examination and autopsy of the victim; consequently, we believe she was qualified to render an opinion regarding the manner in which the wounds were inflicted. Phillips v. Commonwealth, 2012 WL 5457645, at  (Ky. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2012). 6 Case No. 18-6184, Phillips v. Valentine explaining the shooting as an accident and as self-defense and inconsistencies in some of the details, such as where Glodo was shot, how far away Glodo was when shot, and how Phillips got out of his truck—both through police testimony and by playing recordings of his 911 call and police interviews. Nevertheless, the stress laid on the physical evidence that Phillips had been shot squarely in the back of the head cannot be overstated. In its opening, the Commonwealth declared that, “what we will be asking this jury to find is that the defendant is guilty of murder. We will be asking the jury to find that because the defendant intentionally took a 12-gauge shotgun, pointed it at the back of the victim’s head, and pulled the trigger.” At the close of Phillips’s jury trial, the prosecutor addressed the jury again: Ladies and gentlemen, don’t -- I keep saying he was shot in the back of the head. That’s obvious. But don’t forget what Dr. Schott told us, that the bullets were traveling from back to front, okay? That doesn’t give credence to his story that he was shot from the side and grazed and took a chunk of his head off. He was shot from the back, and the bullets were from back to forward -- the pellets did, not bullets. But the pellets went from back to forward, which means that shotgun was fired directly from his back into his head. That is intentional murder. The jury found Phillips guilty of wanton murder, the next charge down, not intentional murder. But the basis for the wanton-murder instruction was that Phillips had “point[ed] a loaded gun at somebody’s head.”5 (Emphasis added.) Moreover, the instructions for wanton murder required “circumstances manifesting in [sic] extreme indifference to human life.” It is hard to see how the prosecution’s argument that “the pellets went from back to forward, which means that shotgun was fired directly from his back into his head” would not therefore have gone to this charge as well as that of intentional murder. 5 The prosecution’s closing argument does not contain a clear separate argument for why Phillips should be found guilty of wanton murder, as opposed to the intentional-murder argument just quoted. Nevertheless, in explaining the meaning of the charges to the jury, the prosecutor said, “Anytime you pull a loaded gun on somebody, we all know what could happen. We all know the worst-case scenario is that gun goes off, okay? If you think that’s what happened, he’s guilty of wanton murder.” 7 Case No. 18-6184, Phillips v. Valentine The defense theory at trial was, as Phillips now describes it, that: Glodo had been shot during a physical altercation that he had initiated. According to defense counsel, Glodo had attacked Phillips with the knife found at the scene after threatening him throughout the day and into the night. Phillips, acting in selfdefense, attempted to push Glodo away with his gun, and a struggle in the dark ensued. Phillips’s gun went off, and Glodo was killed. To support that theory, defense counsel pointed to statements Phillips made to the 911 dispatcher and to the detective that he believed he may have shot Glodo in the face, upper torso, or chest, suggesting that Phillips had no idea that he had shot Glodo in the back of the head. Brief for Petitioner at 10–11 (record citations omitted). Phillips was helped by the extensive testimony from prosecution witness Randy Capps and defense witness Angie Phillips showing that Glodo had been the belligerent one all day. On the other hand, he was hampered by the fact that both his statements on the night of the shooting and his counsel’s argument at trial continued to equivocate over whether the shooting had been accidental or self-defense. The biggest problem, as Phillips now points out, is that “the defense lacked any evidence to challenge the centerpiece of the Commonwealth’s case—Dr. Schott’s testimony regarding the gunshot wound in the back of Glodo’s head.” 8 Case No. 18-6184, Phillips v. Valentine The jury was given instructions on (intentional) murder,6 wanton murder,7 second-degree manslaughter,8 and reckless homicide.9 The jury found him guilty of wanton murder after a brief, same-day deliberation, and then deliberated again and arrived at a sentence of thirty years. Phillips appealed as of right to the Kentucky Supreme Court, which upheld his conviction and sentence. Phillips, 2010 WL 2471669. C. State and Federal Post-Conviction Proceedings In 2011, Phillips filed a collateral challenge to his conviction in the Kentucky state courts. Phillips v. Commonwealth, 2012 WL 5457645, at  (Ky. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2012). As part of this 6 “Instruction number 5, ‘Murder,’ ‘You will find the defendant guilty of murder under this instruction if and only if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt all of the following: That in this county on or about October 18, 2007, and before the finding of the indictment herein, he killed Phillip Glodo by shooting him with a shotgun and that in so doing he caused the death of Phillip Glodo intentionally and that in so doing he was not privileged to act in self-protection.’” 7 “Instruction number 6, ‘Murder,’ [sic] ‘If you do not find the defendant guilty under instruction number 5, you will find the defendant guilty of murder under this instruction if and only if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt all of the following: That in this county on or about October 18, 2007, and before the finding of the indictment herein, he killed Phillip Glodo by shooting him with a shotgun and that in so doing he was wantonly engaging in conduct which created a grave risk of danger to another and thereby caused the death of Phillip Glodo under circumstances manifesting in extreme indifference to human life and that he was not privileged to act in selfprotection.’” 8 “Instruction number 7, ‘Second-Degree Manslaughter,’ ‘If you do not find the defendant guilty under either instruction number 5 or number 6 you will find the defendant guilty of second-degree manslaughter under this instruction if and only if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt all of the following: That in this county on or about October 18, 2007, and before the finding of the indictment herein, he killed Phillip Glodo by shooting him with a shotgun and that in so doing though otherwise privileged to act in self-protection, the defendant was mistaken in his belief that it was necessary to use physical force against Phillip Glodo in self-protection or in his belief in the degree of force necessary to protect himself, and that when he killed Phillip Glodo he was aware and consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that he was mistaken in that belief and that his disregard of that risk constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would've observed in the same situation.’” 9 “Instruction number 8, ‘Reckless Homicide,’ ‘If you do not find the defendant guilty under instruction number 5, number 6, or number 7, you will find the defendant guilty of reckless homicide under this instruction if and only if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt all the following: That in this county on or about October 18, 2007, and before the finding of the indictment herein, he killed Phillip Glodo by shooting him with a shotgun and that in so doing, though otherwise privileged to act in self-protection the defendant was mistaken in his belief that it was necessary to use physical force against Phillip Glodo in self-protection, or in his belief in the degree of force necessary to protect himself, and that when he killed Phillip Glodo he failed to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that he was mistaken in that belief and that his failure to perceive that risk constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would've observed in the same situation.’” 9 Case No. 18-6184, Phillips v. Valentine challenge, Phillips engaged forensic scientist Larry Dehus, who raised the possibility that X-rays would have been taken of Glodo’s skull at autopsy. The state denied that any such X-ray existed, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals ultimately rejected the argument as procedurally barred. Phillips, 2012 WL 5457645, at . In 2013, however, a state open-records request filed on Phillips’s behalf revealed that such an X-ray did exist, and in April 2014, the state turned it over. Phillips thereupon brought a Brady claim in state court; this was rejected on the grounds that such an argument should have been raised on direct appeal. Phillips v. Commonwealth, 2016 WL 2894026, at  (Ky. Ct. App. May 13, 2016). Phillips then turned his efforts to federal court, where he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, based (in pertinent part) on the Brady violation. A magistrate judge initially recommended denying Phillips’s claim. The district court reversed the magistrate judge and ordered an evidentiary hearing on the significance of the X-ray. At that evidentiary hearing, the Commonwealth produced as its sole witness Dr. Jennifer Schott, the coroner and forensic pathologist who testified at Phillips’s trial, while Phillips’s attorney produced forensic scientist Larry Dehus, who had first anticipated the existence of the X- ray in Phillips’s 2011 challenge. Some problems resulted from this mismatch of specialties. Dr. Schott echoed testimony she had given at trial and conceded that she was not a firearms expert. Dehus was forced to admit that, not being a doctor, he was not properly trained in reading X-rays. In particular, Dehus stated (in response to a question from the court) that the X-ray was taken from the back of the head up toward the face, but Dr. Schott pointed out that the X-ray had been taken from the face down toward the back of the head. (Dehus doubled and then tripled down on his contention.) The district court, meanwhile, at certain times seemed to misapprehend the standard 10 Case No. 18-6184, Phillips v. Valentine by which Brady evidence is to be evaluated, framing the inquiry as one into the sufficiency of the evidence: “What I’m interested in learning is, how does this x-ray change anything? Why is it or is it not material to the medical examiner’s determination? . . . . And let’s talk about . . . whether or not that even differs with her original testimony.” (Emphasis added.) The heart of Dehus’s testimony concerned the X-ray: A. . . . . The opaque particles are pieces of shot. Q. And are you familiar with the type of projectile that was used in this case? A. It was birdshot ammunition, yes. Q. Explain to the Court what birdshot is. A. Well, it’s a large number of small BBs. And I think indicated, when I read the report, about .12 inches in diameter. And depending on the size of the load, there could be anywhere from 170 to 220 pellets in that type of birdshot. Q. And it would be fair to say that the x-ray that we have, there’s not 200 birdshot in the skull, is there? A. It certainly doesn’t appear to be that number. It’s not possible from the x-ray to individually count each pellet. But it doesn’t seem -- it doesn’t appear to be anywhere near that number. (Emphasis added.) Phillips’s attorney also elicited testimony confirming that shot had not exited through the front of Glodo’s skull. From this, and from the lack of shotgun wadding on the X‑ray,10 Dehus concluded that Glodo must have been shot at an angle. (As the district court pointed out in its opinion after the hearing, the wadding and exit wound testimony are procedurally barred from being a basis for relief, because both were knowable prior to the discovery of the X-ray.)11 On 10 Dehus argued that, “There is no mention of the recovery of the plastic shotgun wadding from the wound or any mention of it being found in the area of the scene. If a -- in a direct shot to the back of a head at a distance of three feet, a wound would be expected -- it would be expected that the plastic shotgun wadding would travel with the shot and enter the wound in the head.” 11 Dehus had had access in 2011 to both the autopsy report and autopsy photographs, from which the exitwound and wadding points could be gleaned. Indeed, Dehus appear to have made them in the report he made in support of Phillips’s 2011 state collateral challenge. The Kentucky Court of Appeals rejected an ineffective-assistance-ofcounsel challenge based on the failure to hire a ballistics expert at the time of the original trial; the opinion specifies that only Phillips’s “own conflicting statements” were provided as evidence for this theory. Phillips, 2012 WL 5457645, at . 11 Case No. 18-6184, Phillips v. Valentine redirect, Dehus would go on to opine that, indeed, the direction of the shot could be determined from the X-ray itself: Q. What does the x-ray show you as a ballistics person? A. If you know where the entrance wound is and you know where the bullet or the majority of the shot ends up, then that can give you an indication of the direction of travel of the bullet or shot in the body. Q. And in this case, did it show you that? A. Yes. Q. What direction did it show you? A. In my opinion, it’s -- the shot ended up in the right side of the head, and the entrance was towards the left side of the head. Finally, it is worth noting that in both his argument to the court and his direct- and crossexaminations, Phillips’s counsel repeatedly seemed to conflate angle (whether the shot was fired straight-on or from an angle) and distance (whether the muzzle was closer to or further from Glodo’s skull). So too did Dehus and Phillips himself (who spoke briefly at this hearing). Each used the phrase “execution style” to characterize “walking up behind the individual and shooting squarely in the back of the head” This phrase, and indeed this concept, was not used at the original trial—and it would come back to bite them. For the Commonwealth, Dr. Schott testified that, in keeping with standard practice for gunshot wound victims, the state’s autopsy technicians would have taken the X-ray before she performed her autopsy. The X-ray was taken to tell what kind of projectile—shot or bullets—was in the skull pre-autopsy. She also testified that during the autopsy, she had recovered 19 pellets as a representative sample “for the purpose of them being examined” by the crime lab. Dr. Schott emphasized that as the X-ray was only a two-dimensional image, without another X‑ray from the side, she could not tell the exact location of any shot. Therefore, she said, the X‑ray had “no bearing on direction of the injury.” When asked, “can you tell from the x-ray how many pellets are -- in 12 Case No. 18-6184, Phillips v. Valentine the head[,]” she responded, “[n]o.” Dr. Schott did not testify directly one way or the other to whether all the shot one would expect was there; on cross-examination her position was that she could not speak to firearms questions, and thus that position prevented her from reaching the question. The state also seemed at pains to affirm that Dr. Schott still believed the victim to have been shot “in the back of the head.” Dr. Schott confirmed there was no exit wound. After the hearing, the district court ruled that “the x-ray is not favorable to the defendant. Nor is it material.” Phillips v. Valentine, 2018 WL 4976801, at  (E.D. Ky. Oct. 15, 2018). First, it set aside information that could have been obtained before the discovery of the X-ray. Then, the court found that what was left was the X-ray evidence bearing on, as Dehus had put it, “the ‘direction of the shot and the relative quantity of the shot.’” The heart of the district court’s opinion is that: Dehus’s testimony about the significance of the x-ray is not reliable. He testified that “as best [he could] tell,” the x-ray was taken from the back of Glodo’s head. (DE 137, Tr. at 19, 20-21, 50.) Jennifer Schott, the medical doctor who performed the autopsy of Glodo, however, testified that the x-ray was taken front to back. (DE 137, Tr. at 31.) Dehus conceded that he was not qualified to say whether the x-ray was taken from the front or the back because his is not a medical doctor. (DE 137, Tr. at 52.) Dr. Schott is a medical doctor. Further, she served as the medical examiner for the Kentucky Department of Justice (Pf. Ex. I, Tr. at 2-3) and would necessarily be more familiar with its procedures. Thus, her testimony on the angle of the x-ray is more credible. Because Dehus believed the x-ray was taken from the back of Glodo’s head, any conclusions that he drew from the x-ray are unreliable. Even assuming, however, that Dehus’s opinion is correct and that Glodo was shot from behind at an angle and at a distance, that does not undermine confidence in the jury’s finding that Phillips committed wanton murder. A person is guilty of wanton murder under Kentucky law when he “wantonly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person and thereby causes” the person’s death. KRS § 507.020(1)(b). Evidence that Phillips shot Glodo from behind at a distance is not inconsistent with the jury’s verdict. Wanton murder does not require a finding that Glodo was shot “execution style” in the back of the head. If anything, evidence that Phillips shot Glodo in the back of the head from a distance contradicts Phillips’ claim that he shot Glodo in self-defense. Further, Dr. Schott did not testify at trial that Glodo was shot “execution style.” In the portion of the trial testimony that Phillips provided the Court at the hearing, Dr. Schott, testified that Glodo was 13 Case No. 18-6184, Phillips v. Valentine shot at “three feet distance or more.” (DE 137, Tr. at 39; Pf. Ex. I, Tr. at 13; DE 30- 7, Com. Bf. at 13.) For all these reasons, the Court does not find the x-ray favorable to Phillips or material to his guilt. Id. at –5. The district court thus denied the petition for the writ of habeas corpus but granted a certificate of appealability as to the Brady issue. The matter is now before us.