Opinion ID: 1379546
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Additional Trial Testimony

Text: Keith Norton, a forensic pathologist and deputy coroner at the Franklin County Coroner's office, performed an autopsy on Schneider. Norton found numerous bruises and abrasions on Schneider's body, including two on the front of her right leg, three on the inside of her right leg, one close to her right ankle, and three on the outside of the left upper leg. There was a bruise on the base of Schneider's right thumb, on the back of the hand, that Norton testified was consistent with (but not necessarily) a defensive wound. There was also swelling and bruising of the left side of the face close to the eye. In addition, there were two narrow scratch-like scrapes on the right side of the chest, and there was an abrasion with the bruise on the left side of her neck. While the bruises were of different colors, Norton testified that he was not able to say when they had been caused, as determining the age of bruises is not science, but is rather like reading tarot cards. (JA 0855.) Most tellingly, Norton testified that he had found that Schneider's lips on the right side of her mouth were burned, and that there was a small circular area on the upper lip in the middle of this burned area that was relatively spared, more nearly normal in color. (JA 0807.) Norton also testified that Schneider's front teeth were intact  meaning that the bullet entered her open mouth. Norton stated that the fact that the gun was outside of Schneider's mouth when it was discharged suggested to him that it was not suicide. Ultimately, however, Norton was not able to conclusively determine the manner of Schneider's death (as homicide or suicide), and instead recommended that the coroner rule the manner of death undetermined. As Norton explained, [t]he major consideration of whether this was a suicide and unable to determine that decision, I went ahead with an undetermined ruling. That is what I recommended to Dr. Lewis, the Coroner, and Dr. Lewis went along with that. (JA 0946.) Norton also testified that his autopsy findings were not inconsistent with CPR having been performed. Tolliver, 2004 WL 625683, at . [Columbus Police Detective and bloodstain expert Robert] Young also noted 18 impact spatterings on the right forearm of [a]white shirt found in the clothes hamper. According to Young, the entrance wound in Claire's mouth produced high velocity back spatter, which landed on the right sleeve of the shirt, demonstrating that the shirt was in close proximity to Claire's face at the instant she was shot. Impact droplets in the button line on the front of the shirt indicated that the shirt was worn unbuttoned at the time of the spattering. Young candidly admitted that he did not think the shooting was a homicide until he saw photographs of the shirt. Young conceded that expirated blood from Claire's mouth or nose expelled during CPR might appear as high velocity spatter, but he did not believe that the bloodstains on the shirt were expirated. Young concurred in Norton's opinion that the fact that only Claire's back teeth sustained damage indicated that her mouth was open at the time she was shot. Young agreed that the blood spatterings found on the shirt are consistent with the theory that someone fired the gun with the left hand while holding Claire by the throat with the right hand. Young conceded, however, that the blood spatter evidence did not provide a direct indication of who fired the gun. Id. at . Mark J. Hardy, a criminalist with the Columbus police and an expert in firearms evaluation, testified that Schneider's lips had probably been burned by the gasses that emerged from the gun when it was fired, and that the unburned area on her lips probably indicated that part of the muzzle of the gun was pressed against her mouth, and so protected her lips from the heat. This would mean that the gun was not inserted into Schneider's mouth, but rather fired from just outside of her mouth. Hardy concluded that the gun had been positioned on its side with the butt of the gun facing to Schneider's left as you are looking at her. On cross, Hardy agreed that the exact features he had described could have been produced by Claire holding the gun close to her face and pulling the trigger. (JA 1578; 1585.) Defense bloodstain expert Stuart James determined that Claire was standing no more than 6 to 12 inches from the bathroom door when she was shot. With regard to the bloodstain spatters on the white shirt, James concluded that it was impossible to state with scientific certainty whether the spatters were produced by gunshot back spatter. Claire's cell phone records demonstrate that between 1:29 and 2:15 a.m. on December 29, 2001, seven calls were made to Natasha Tolliver's cell phone, one call was made to Claire's cell phone, one call was made to defendant's cell phone, and one call was made to a friend of defendant. Tolliver, 2004 WL 625683, at . One of the prosecution's key witnesses was Joseph Adams, an inmate who had been incarcerated with Tolliver, who testified that Tolliver confessed to killing Schneider. [3] Adams was in prison for eight counts of bank robbery, one count of possession of cocaine, and one count of kidnapping. Previously, he had been convicted of manslaughter and theft of a credit card. After Adams discovered that Tolliver had been charged with murder, he decided to try to coerce Tolliver into revealing details about the murder so that he could then provide that information to the state in exchange for a reduction in his sentence. Tolliver, 2004 WL 625683, at . Adams was serving a 16-year sentence, and in exchange for his testimony against Tolliver his sentence was cut in half. According to Adams, Tolliver had said that he felt as though he would be losing Schneider if she went on her study abroad. Tolliver just couldn't take Schneider traveling to the Dominican Republic, Adams added. (JA 1425.) After Tolliver shot Schneider, moreover, Adams testified, Tolliver had to get rid of some evidence. (JA 1425.) He shot her with a sock over his wrist, a shirt, like a towel over the rest of his arm when he shot her, to keep the gun blast from going back. He had to get rid of that evidence. He had to move her around to make it look like she killed herself. He wanted to get blood on him from her to make it look like he was holding her, and that was the state of shock he was in, and eventually he called the authorities. (JA 1425.) Tolliver's defense strategy, Adams explained, would be to tell the jury that Schneider had killed herself, and when they saw him on the stand and saw him cry and really look remorseful, then they would know that he didn't kill her himself, his exact words. (JA 1427.) An inmate incarcerated with [Tolliver] and Adams, David Dye, testified on behalf of [Tolliver]. According to Dye, Adams approached him prior to [Tolliver's] trial and asked him if he wanted to testify against [Tolliver] in order to help myself (Dye) out. (Vol.XII, Tr. 1670.) Dye told Adams that he could not testify against [Tolliver] because he did not know anything about [Tolliver's] case. He further stated that although Adams never told him he had made up the story about [Tolliver], Dye got the impression that Adams had done so. Tolliver, 2004 WL 625683, at -.