Opinion ID: 1401004
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First Stage Evidence

Text: We first address the photographs admitted during the trial's guilt phase. Specifically, Mr. Wilson argues that photographs of the victim's back and head in a pool of blood, a photograph of the victim's entire body face down on the floor, the back of the victim's shaved head, and an additional grotesque picture, were more prejudicial than probative. Pet. Br. at 48. The OCCA found that these photographs aided the medical examiner in his explanation of the wounds to the victim and manner of death and were relevant to show the cause of death and the intent of the attacker. Wilson I, 983 P.2d, at 468. The district court affirmed. Wilson III, 2006 WL 2289777, at . Our role on habeas review is a limited one. The photographs, while gruesome, are relevant to the case. They allowed the examiner to show where the baseball bat caused various injuries. Additionally, these photographs, depicting the extent of the injuries, are probative of the attacker's intent to kill. See Willingham v. Mullin, 296 F.3d 917, 928-29 (10th Cir.2002) (photographs relevant to the critical element of intent to kill at the penalty phase). Though analyzed in a slightly different context, the Brown Court also found that these photographs were relevant. See Brown, 515 F.3d at 1084 (analyzed under prosecutorial misconduct). Finally, the evidence at the guilt phase was particularly strong. We have carefully reviewed the record and the arguments and conclude that the admission did not make the proceeding fundamentally unfair. See Thornburg v. Mullin, 422 F.3d 1113, 1129 (10th Cir.2005) (Reviewing the record under AEDPA's constraints, and in light of the probative value of the pictures, the gruesome nature of the crime, and the other evidence incriminating [the defendant], the Court affirmed the OCCA's denial of relief.). Mr. Wilson also contends that evidence of the money found on his co-defendants was irrelevant, as the police found no money on him. We cannot agree. Mr. Wilson is charged with robbery, and the state's theory was that he acted in tandem with the other three defendants. The money was relevant evidence of the joint robbery.