Opinion ID: 71677
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Probative Value of Crime Scene Photos

Text: The two crime scene photographs depict information valuable to the Government’s case; they clarify oral testimony and illustrate the condition of 6 Case: 08-61115 Document: 00511040046 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/02/2010 No. 08-61115 Reed’s body and the scene where her body was left. The first photograph depicts the body lying in a clearing surrounded by a wooded area. It is difficult to tell that the photo depicts a human body, as Reed’s head and hands have been removed. The second photograph shows a close-up of the body, and the individual wounds are more clearly visible. These two photos were first admitted during Luther Crownover’s testimony. Crownover, a beekeeper, discovered Reed’s body; in his testimony, he referred to the photos as he described the discovery and where the body was located. Crownover testified that he observed “what [he] assumed was an animal carcass . . . that someone had started butchering” across the fence from a line of his bee hives. He related that he approached the carcass because he thought it was “going to attract flies and birds and was going to be a problem . . . with the odor for several weeks probably,” so he “climb[ed] over the fence and [went to] go see if [he] could move it further into the woods.” However, once he approached and bent over the carcass, he realized it was a human body. While looking at the two photos, Crownover testified that Reed’s body was only clothed in underwear at the time of discovery, although he did not know it was underwear at the time. He testified that he “thought it was possibly just a rag or something someone had used to drag this carcass out, because at that time [he] still didn’t know it was a human body.” He stated that the second photo in particular reflected the condition of Reed’s body at the time he discovered her. Crownover also testified that the area, flat and marshy, had once been an old farm road for wagons and that there were no homes within a quarter mile or more. Donnie McGovern, the Simpson County Sheriff’s Office investigator who responded to Crownover’s 911 call, also testified about the two photographs. McGovern identified the photos as depicting “the body that was reported . . . by Mr. Luther Crownover,” and he stated that the body was located down a trail, 7 Case: 08-61115 Document: 00511040046 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/02/2010 No. 08-61115 194 feet to the east of Old River Road (a paved street), and about fifteen feet north of a deer stand. He used the second photo to indicate where the deer stand was located in relation to the body. He also testified that while the trail was visible from Old River Road during daytime hours, the trail would not be visible at night and the body was not visible from the road. Like in Fields, the two photographs help explain why no physical evidence was found linking Collins to the murder—a point Collins repeatedly leaned on at trial. The photos show that Reed’s body was left outside, in the elements, in only her underwear. Whoever committed the crime had removed the clothing and the parts of Reed’s body most likely to retain traces of physical evidence. The two photographs also corroborate the medical examiner’s testimony that Reed was killed at another location and then dumped on the trail, as there was only a small amount of blood at the dump site. While the probative value of the two crime scene photographs either was or could have been brought out through testimony at trial, we have consistently held that “[t]he fact to which the evidence is directed need not be in dispute,” and Rule 403 “does not ban per se all duplicative evidence.” Fields, 483 F.3d at 356 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The two crime scene photos have nontrivial probative value.