Opinion ID: 1009453
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Video Reenactment

Text: During the course of Dorothy McGee’s testimony, the prosecution entered into evidence a video reenactment of McGee’s experience with the pinkish red truck. In the reenactment, McGee drove her vehicle down the same stretch of road under lighting conditions similar to those on August 29, and was passed by a police officer driving a white truck. McGee testified that the truck in the reenactment looked [s]ort of pink . . . the way it looked that night. J.A. 364. McGee further testified that, in view of the re-enactment, she was certain that the truck that passed [her] was white with a dark tailgate. Id. at 365-66. Bramblett claims that trial counsel were ineffective for failing to object to the admission of the video reenactment on the basis that the prosecution failed to lay a proper foundation by eliciting testimony from McGee regarding the similarity of conditions during the reenactment to the conditions on the morning of August 29.10 We conclude that any objection would have been futile. See Oken v. Corcoran, 220 F.3d 259, 269-70 (4th Cir. 2000) (holding that trial counsel were not ineffective for failing to make futile objection). While the videotape was played for the jury, McGee testified regarding the similarity of the events in the video to her experience on the morning of August 29. In light of McGee’s testimony, it is highly doubtful that the State would have been unable to lay the necessary foundation for admission of the video, and Bramblett has failed to demonstrate that a proper foundation could not have been laid.11 Cf. Brown v. Corbin, 423 S.E.2d 176, 178 (Va. 1992) (stating that a photographic reconstruction of an event is admissible if the party offering the evidence establishes that the reconstruction is substantially similar, although not 10 Bramblett challenged the admissibility of the video on direct appeal, but the Supreme Court of Virginia found that the challenge was barred under the State’s contemporaneous objection rule. See Bramblett, 513 S.E.2d at 405 n.. 11 Bramblett contends that it was the State’s burden to establish the admissibility of the video reenactment. On habeas review, however, the burden rests with the petitioner to demonstrate that counsel’s performance was prejudicially ineffective. See Savino v. Murray, 82 F.3d 593, 598-99 (4th Cir. 1996). 14 BRAMBLETT v. TRUE necessarily identical, to the actual event in all of its essential particulars). Even assuming that counsel were ineffective for failing to object to the admission of the videotape, Bramblett cannot establish that he was prejudiced. Contrary to Bramblett’s assertion, the video reenactment was not so critical to the prosecution’s case that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would not have found Bramblett guilty had it been excluded. As noted above, substantial evidence tied Bramblett to the murders. In light of this evidence, it was not unreasonable for the Supreme Court of Virginia to reject this claim.