Court Opinion

ID: 9961257
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-18 15:10:31.011124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:30.979774
License: Public Domain

IMPORTANT NOTICE
        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION

THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED “NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.”
PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, RAP 40(D), THIS
OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE
CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER
CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER,
UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS,
RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED
OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE
BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN
UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A
COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG
WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO
THE ACTION.
                                                   RENDERED: APRIL 18, 2024
                                                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

               Supreme Court of Kentucky
                               2021-SC-0568-MR

JOSHUA AUSTIN WARD                                                    APPELLANT

                ON APPEAL FROM BOONE CIRCUIT COURT
V.            HONORABLE RICHARD A BRUEGGEMANN, JUDGE
                           NO. 18-CR-00483

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                               APPELLEE

                  MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT

                                  AFFIRMING

      Joshua Austin Ward appeals from his concurrent life sentences without

the possibility of parole imposed by the Boone Circuit Court following a jury

trial in which he was convicted for the murders of Kelli Kramer (his former

girlfriend) and her nine-year-old son, Aiden Kramer. Ward argues errors

regarding denial of his right to present a defense in his role as hybrid counsel,

denial of his motion in limine to limit the firearm toolmark examiner’s

testimony, the offering of improper opinion testimony regarding a surveillance

video, impermissible comments on his right to silence involving access to his

cell phone, flagrant prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument, and

denial of a directed verdict. We affirm because while errors occurred, they were

either harmless where preserved or not palpable when unpreserved. We

regretfully cannot address the argument regarding the firearm toolmark
examiner’s expert testimony where the defense never requested a hearing

pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

                I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

      Ward was convicted of these murders partially based on firearm toolmark

identification involving shell casings. 1 A firearms toolmark examiner, 2 Jennifer

Owens, testified that nine .22 caliber shell casings found at the murder scene

and two .22 caliber shell casings found at a farm where Ward target shot a year

prior, were fired from the same firearm. Other evidence provided support for

the jury to convict Ward but was not as definitive.

      Although Ward was married, he was involved in an unusual polyamorous

lifestyle. Ward desired to be the dominant male over several submissive females

forming a family. Ward and his wife Karen were involved in Fetlife, a platform

for people with sexual fetishes. Ward used this platform to look for additional

girlfriends and to make other social connections.

      In 2016 and early 2017, Ward became involved with multiple women he

met through FetLife: Diane Christos, Tonya Palmer, and Kramer. Kramer had a

checkered past, but Ward was pleased she wished to make some changes in

her life for her and Aiden to become part of “the family.”

       1 To maintain consistency, we shall exclusively use this term. We recognize,

however, that various overlapping terms are used interchangeably by experts, courts,
scientific journals, the media and parties. These alternative terms include bullet
casings, casings, cartridge casings, cartridges, fired cartridges, fired casings, spent
cartridges, and spent casings; such terms may appear in sources we quote.
      2 Alternatively, such an expert may be termed a “forensic firearms examiner.”

These terms are more precise than “ballistics expert” which may encompass other
areas of expertise regarding firearms.

                                           2
      Five months into the relationship, in May 2017, Kramer left her cell

phone at Ward’s home. Ward went through the phone and found messages that

he believed established Kramer was prostituting herself. Ward was irate and

determined he was “done” with the relationship. Ward contacted Kramer’s

mother about her behavior, broke up with Kramer in front of her coworkers,

publicly shamed Kramer by signing onto her Facebook page and (while posing

as Kramer) confessed that she was a prostitute and drug user, and outed the

behavior of one “John” by messaging his family members.

      Twice in May 2017, Ward drove to Kramer’s parents’ house and waited

for Kramer without seeing her. According to Ward, he wanted to talk to Kramer

about seeing Aiden but he gave up on the idea based on email exchanges they

had later. Ward denied ever seeing Kramer again after he broke up with her in

May 2017, or ever communicating with her after the end of that month.

      After the breakup Ward had several conversations with other people,

including Christos, Palmer, Adrienne Fiely, and Nicole Bohley, about how angry

he was at Kramer for ruining his “family” and discussed how he wanted her to

be held accountable. He also made statements about what he wanted to do to

Kramer that they found disturbing.

      In November 2017, Kramer became involved with another dominant male

that she met on FetLife, David Sullivan. Sullivan broke up with his former

girlfriend Sigma Novak to focus on his relationship with Kramer.

                                       3
      Novak identified as a “primal” and fantasied about hunting someone

down. While dating Sullivan, Novak had a habit of urinating around his home

to “mark” her territory.

      In February 2018, Novak became aware of Sullivan’s new relationship

when Sullivan and Kramer attended a “Beat My Valentine” convention together.

Novak reacted jealously: she followed Sullivan around the convention and

yelled at him, she tracked Kramer down and sent her messages about Sullivan,

she contacted Ward about Kramer’s new relationship, and she used her

children’s Facebook accounts to track down Sullivan.

      According to Chelsea Ballard, on Tuesday, March 20, 2018, Kramer and

Aiden visited Ballard, and Kramer and Ballard jointly bought

methamphetamine to resell. Kramer left Ballard’s home with Aiden at around

10:00 p.m., stopped at a McDonald’s drive-thru at 10:20 p.m. and called

Sullivan. At 10:46 p.m. Kramer’s phone connected to her Wi-Fi router. Sullivan

texted Kramer at 11:11 p.m. asking “You home?” Kramer did not text back.

      Sullivan drove to Kramer’s apartment, entered it at around 3:30 a.m. and

discovered Kramer’s and Aiden’s bodies in the living room. There were no lights

on, and Kramer and Aiden still wore their coats and shoes. Kramer had been

shot six times; once in the leg and five times in the head. Aiden had been shot

three times, once in the chest and twice in the head.

      There were no witnesses to the crime. The only definitive evidence which

could connect any of the suspects or other individuals with the murder scene

were the nine .22 caliber long rifle shell casings.

                                         4
      Ward agreed to be interviewed by police and voluntarily provided his

DNA. Ward denied any involvement in the murders and was candid about the

actions he took when he broke up with Kramer.

      Possible suspects emerged including Ward, Sullivan and Sullivan’s ex-

girlfriend, Novak. Kramer’s personal lifestyle (which included involvement with

prostitution and drugs) and her reports to her friends naming other men as

stalkers also suggested that others could be responsible for the murders.

      Palmer called a tip line and police learned about the troubling statements

Ward had made to various women about Kramer. Police also learned from

Sullivan that in December 2017, Kramer had texted him about seeing Ward at

the Starbucks where she was working.

      Investigators secured a video recording from the Starbucks and identified

a man in an orange sweatshirt and hat who they believed was Ward. This led to

the theory that Ward had been dishonest in his interview and was stalking

Kramer. The Starbucks video was part of the basis for the grand jury returning

an indictment.

      The police received search warrants for Ward’s residence and cell

phones. The police did not find the orange sweatshirt from the Starbucks video

or any other evidence linking him to the murders. Investigators were unable to

access desired information on Ward’s current phone as the phone itself had a

password and encryption. They also learned Ward used an app called Wickr to

protect his data.

                                       5
      Attempting to procure evidence connecting Ward with the murders, the

police had Palmer meet with Ward while wearing a wire. Although Ward was

clearly suspicious of Palmer’s questions, and even checked her for a wire which

he did not find, he did not say anything incriminating.

      Having learned that in the summer of 2017, Ward target shot with a .22

caliber firearm at Palmer’s farm in Ohio, the police searched the farm looking

for .22 shell casings they could use to tie Ward to the murders. Investigators

collected about twenty-five .22 shell casings from the farm and submitted two

of those casings to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

(ATF) for comparative analysis with the shell casings from the murder scene.

Even though the murder weapon was never found, Owens concluded that all

eleven shell casings (the nine shell casings from the murder scene and the two

shell casings from the farm) came from the same firearm after performing a

microscopic firearm toolmark analysis using a split microscope to compare the

samples.

      Prior to trial, Ward requested he be allowed to proceed with hybrid

representation. This motion was granted, and Ward became co-counsel. To

avoid confusion, we will generally designate actions taken on Ward’s behalf by

his attorneys as “the defense” and will reserve use of Ward’s name to refer to

actions he specifically undertook in his own self-representation at trial.

      The Commonwealth Attorney requested via a motion in limine that Ward

be prohibited from personally examining three witnesses that were afraid of

                                        6
him (Christos, Palmer and Fiely). Neither defense counsel nor Ward objected to

such limitation.

      The defense filed a motion in limine to prohibit the Commonwealth from

having its firearm expert Owens offer opinion testimony that the two sets of

shell casings were fired from the same firearm. 3 The defense specifically waived

having a Daubert hearing but proposed that the certainty of Owen’s opinion

should be limited further and proposed alternative language for her to use.

Ultimately, the trial court determined it was acceptable under existing case law

to allow Owens to testify that she believed both sets of shell casings came from

the same firearm.

      At trial, Owens testified that based on her analysis, all of the shell

casings could be identified as having been fired from the same firearm because

they had sufficient marks in agreement but acknowledged on cross-

examination that her conclusions were subjective. Pictures of the shell casings

were admitted into evidence.

      Steven Weitz, the chief of the DNA section at the ATF laboratory, testified

he tested the shell casings found at the scene for DNA and compared it to DNA

samples from Kramer, Aiden, Ward and Sullivan. Weitz testified that the shell

      3 Originally, the defense sought to prohibit Owens from: (1) testifying there was

a “match” between the shell casings recovered at the scene and the shell casings
recovered at the farm; (2) stating her opinion to a degree of statistical or scientific
certainty; (3) phrasing her opinion as being “to the exclusion of all other firearms;” and
(4) testifying to any conclusion that the shell casings recovered from the scene and
shell casings recovered from the farm were fired from the same firearm. During a
hearing on this issue, the Commonwealth agreed that Owens would not engage in (1)-
(3) but argued Owens could properly testify as to (4).

                                            7
casings DNA belonged to Kramer, Aiden and a third individual, with at least

one of those individuals being a male. He explained that Ward was excluded as

being a possible contributor to the DNA profile, but Sullivan could neither be

included nor excluded as a contributor. He also testified that there were many

reasons why a person’s DNA might not be on a shell casing, including that the

person wore gloves.

      Detective Tony VonDerHaar testified he had recovered and inspected

electronic devices belonging to Ward and could not access Ward’s current cell

phone because it was encrypted.

      Detective Chris Hull testified about two black and white poor quality

security videos from a Little Caesar’s restaurant which were filmed on the night

of the murder and admitted into evidence. He narrated what he believed was

occurring in the videos and testified to similarities between the “murderer’s

vehicle” and Ward’s vehicle.

      During Ward’s case-in-chief, Ward requested that counsel recall the

Commonwealth’s witnesses because he wished to impeach them with

inconsistencies. The trial court declined to require counsel to call and question

these witnesses and they were not recalled.

      Ward testified and denied having any involvement in the murder. He

explained his lifestyle and history with Kramer but testified that he had moved

on with his life after the breakup, although he still cared about Aiden and had

at one time hoped to stay being a part of his life. Ward denied knowing where

Kramer lived. He denied leaving his home the night of the murder, explaining

                                        8
that he was ill. He admitted to knowing that Kramer worked at a Starbucks

because he had come across her picture in a Starbucks uniform on Tinder, but

denied knowing at which location she worked or ever wearing an orange

sweatshirt to a Starbucks.

      During the cross-examination of Ward, the Commonwealth Attorney

asked Ward whether he made it impossible for the police to access his phone.

Ward replied that his phone’s operation system had inherent encryption but

admitted he also had the Wickr app.

      Karen testified that on the night of the murders she was working a

twenty-four-hour shift and did not return home until the next day but when

she returned home Ward’s car was covered with four inches of snow. It was

established that Ward’s cell phone was on and using data within one mile of

his home address, which was a forty-five-minute drive from Kramer’s

apartment.

      Regarding the Starbucks video, the defense called Michael Edwards, who

was located based on information from Starbucks that he had paid for a drink

using the Starbucks app during the relevant time period of the video. Edwards

testified he was the man in the video and produced the orange sweatshirt and

baseball cap he had been wearing that day. Subsequently, the Commonwealth

                                      9
more-or-less conceded that it was Edwards and not Ward who was captured on

the Starbucks video. 4

      The jury found Ward guilty of both murders and he was sentenced to life

in prison in accordance with the jury’s recommendation. He appeals to our

Court as a matter of right.

      Given the concerns Ward raised about the firearm toolmark identification

testimony and our understanding that this testimony was the “linchpin” which

resulted in Ward’s conviction, our Court requested that the parties brief and

provide oral argument as to whether we should reconsider our ruling in Garrett

v. Commonwealth, 534 S.W.3d 217, 222-23 (Ky. 2017), regarding the opinion

testimony firearm toolmark examiners can properly provide in identifying

samples as having come from the same firearm in light of the report generated

by the United States President’s Counsel of Advisors on Science and

Technology regarding valid forensic science in criminal courts (PCAST Report) 5

and subsequent developments. We initially considered this issue preserved due

to the motion in limine. The parties provided extensive briefing on this issue

and vigorously argued their positions during oral argument.

      4 During the Commonwealth’s closing argument, the Commonwealth Attorney

stated that she did not care if the man shown in the Starbucks video was Edwards or
Ward because the murder did not happen at the Starbucks.
        5 Executive Office of the President: President’s Council of Advisors on Science

and Technology, Report to the President: Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring
Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods, 104-14 (Sep. 2016), https://
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_fore
nsic_science_report_final.pdf (section relating to the validity of firearm toolmark
identification).

                                          10
                              II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

      Ward raises six issues on appeal which we address in order.

A. Was Ward Denied his Right to Present a Defense when he was Not
Allowed to Recall Witnesses as Hybrid Counsel? — Preserved

      Prior to trial, Ward requested and was granted, via a March 12, 2021,

written order, the right to “proceed as hybrid counsel throughout this matter.”

The trial court specifically granted Ward broad powers of self-representation

through proceeding as hybrid counsel, specifying:

      [Ward] shall be jointly responsible for cross-examination of all
      witnesses called by the Commonwealth; and to raise any objections
      to evidence. [Ward] shall be jointly responsible for deciding whether
      to produce any witnesses at trial or to introduce any exhibits. . . .
      It will be [Ward’s] joint responsibility to make all strategic decisions
      which would include whether to testify; to call other witnesses;
      and, to offer exhibits and other evidence.

      Prior to trial, the Commonwealth filed a motion in limine to prohibit the

examination of Palmer, Christos, and Fiely by Ward personally, explaining

these witnesses were afraid of Ward. However, the Commonwealth stated it did

not object to Ward “being allowed to prepare questions and consult with co-

counsel both before and during the direct or examination of Palmer, Christos,

and Fiely.” The Commonwealth also noted that it did not object to Ward

personally cross-examining other Commonwealth witnesses.

      During an October 2, 2021, hearing on this and other matters, Ward and

his defense counsel were present. The trial court acknowledged that Ward was

hybrid counsel, had counsel enter appearances and then asked about the

Commonwealth’s motion in limine concerning the examination of certain

witnesses. The Commonwealth stated that no objection had been received and

                                        11
the defense counsel stated there was no objection. By virtue of the hybrid

counsel motion being granted, Ward was on notice that he could participate in

his own representation, but Ward did not ask for clarification or contribute in

any way.

      Later in that same hearing, the trial court stated that it needed the

ground rules established for how the hybrid representation would work during

trial so there would be no misunderstandings. Defense counsel briefly

conferred with Ward and then replied:

      I think he’s wanting me [and other defense attorney] to take on
      basically all the trial work. I think he wants to be involved, but I
      don’t plan on having him do anything that counsel will be doing.
      Me or [other defense attorney] will be cross examining,
      examinations, voir dire, etcetera, arguing most objections. I think
      he does want to be present for bench conferences.

Ward did not say anything. 6 The Commonwealth had no objection to this

division of responsibilities.

      A dispute on the defense’s trial strategy arose between counsel and Ward

mid-trial and counsel requested and received an ex-parte conference to address

this issue. Ward explained that the previous day when discussing trial strategy

with counsel, he learned for the first time that counsel had no intention of

recalling the Commonwealth witnesses during his case-in-chief. Ward

explained he had listened to counsel’s reasoning, had thought about it, but he

       6 In a hybrid counsel situation, it would be prudent for the trial court to

specifically ask whether the defendant wished to respond to what defense counsel had
stated and/or whether the defendant agreed with this representation as to how their
duties would be divided. However, such proactive behavior on the part of the trial
court is not required. Ward had the obligation to speak up if he disagreed with how
their duties would be divided.

                                        12
still wanted these witnesses recalled as he wanted to impeach them with

contradictions.

      Ward explained his belief that one witness’s testimony was an “absolute

case of perjury” with “numerous misstatements that can easily be, with records

that already exist, proven false.” Ward maintained that as to these witnesses,

“to not degrade that testimony further I feel leaves a false impression on the

strength of those witnesses in the minds of the jury and so I’d ask that they be

recalled . . . . [Counsel’s] response was ‘no,’” because counsel “didn’t feel like

‘cutting our wrists’ by recalling them.”

      Ward mentioned specifically that he wanted to “show some of the

criminal or negligent conduct by some of the officers in this case” and felt that

not recalling some of the witnesses on their contradictory statements “leaves

me in a very bad position as a defendant.” Ward stated, “I know that I have no

legal capability to make [counsel] do as I’ve requested.” He explained that if he

had known counsel was not going to recall these witnesses, he would have

insisted on a more thorough cross-examination.

      Counsel responded that “he wants to recall some of the witnesses like

[Palmer], [Christos], [Fiely], [Bohley] potentially,” explained counsel thought the

cross-examinations against them had gone well, and feared recalling them “to

establish very minor tweaks” and opening them up to cross-examination by the

Commonwealth would “result in completely obliterating the work we have done

thus far,” opining that it would be negligent to recall those witnesses, and

doing so would “fail tremendously.”

                                           13
      The trial court repeatedly urged Ward and counsel to try to resolve their

dispute and come to an agreement. When no progress was made, the trial court

suggested that perhaps Ward could personally recall the witnesses.

      Counsel responded, “I would be totally fine with it if he would take it over

and he would recall his witnesses if he wants, to ask them questions. But the

pretrial ruling is that those particular witnesses that he wouldn’t be allowed to

examine.”

      The trial court confirmed that the pretrial ruling was going to stand.

Ward did not express any dispute with this ruling or the process by which it

had been made.

      Counsel then explained “So it’s put back on me, like, I’d essentially be

asking the questions that he asks, and then it just turns me into his puppet as

opposed to counsel. I’d no longer have any autonomy.”

      The trial court responded, “There are limits as you know of things that

an attorney is required to do,” urged Ward and counsel to reach an agreement,

stating “I am certainly not going to give a directive that you [counsel] have to do

that” and if there was an impasse on the issue, it was preserved for appeal.

      The witnesses that Ward asked to recall were not recalled by counsel or

by Ward. 7

      7 It is unclear whether these witnesses had been finally dismissed or were

subject to recall, and whether it was feasible to recall them without delaying the trial.
In the absence of any discussion of this issue, we do not consider these potential
complications further.

                                           14
      Ward argues that because the trial court did not require counsel to recall

and examine the Commonwealth’s witnesses that Ward was deprived of his

Sixth Amendment right to self-representation, thus denying him the right to a

defense of his own choosing. He argued this constituted a structural error

which does not require that he demonstrates harm to require reversal.

      Hybrid representation strikes a balance between the right to self-

representation and the right to counsel.

      Kentucky courts view hybrid counsel as self-representation, in
      part. That is, the defendant makes a limited waiver of counsel
      whereby he acts as co-counsel with a licensed attorney. The
      defendant specifies the extent of legal services he desires, but
      undertakes the remaining portion of his defense pro se.

Allen v. Commonwealth, 410 S.W.3d 125, 138-39 (Ky. 2013) (citation footnotes

and quotation marks omitted).

      All defendants have certain constitutional rights which must be honored,

“no matter how unwise[.]” Ortega v. O’Leary, 843 F.2d 258, 261 (7th Cir. 1988).

“[W]hen a defendant chooses to have a lawyer manage and present his case,

law and tradition may allocate to the counsel the power to make binding

decisions of trial strategy in many areas.” Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806,

820 (1975). In such a situation, counsel is generally empowered to “sail the

trial ship.” Hall v. Commonwealth, 557 S.W.2d 420, 423 (Ky. 1977). That is,

defense counsel is generally empowered to make all final decisions that are not

constitutionally reserved to the defendant. That does not mean that a

defendant does not contribute to this decision-making process but does not

                                        15
“make the final call” for most strategic decisions. This is permissible because

“the accused has acquiesced in such representation.” Faretta, 422 U.S. at 821.

      When a defendant asserts the right to hybrid counsel, the defendant

“dictat[es] the extent of counsel’s involvement[,]” with the trial court only

permitted to “structure the role and scope of hybrid counsel[.]” Major v.

Commonwealth, 275 S.W.3d 706, 722 (Ky. 2009). Splitting the role of counsel

in such a situation can result in “countless variations on how the duties of the

defense will be divided between a defendant and his hybrid counsel.” Nunn v.

Commonwealth, 461 S.W.3d 741, 750 (Ky. 2015). Accordingly, reviewing courts

“also give correspondingly wide, but not unlimited, latitude to the trial judges

to manage those countless variations in their effort to accommodate a

defendant’s desire for hybrid counsel.” Id.

      In a hybrid counsel situation, the defendant has acquiesced in part to

representation by defense counsel. How, then, are common disagreements

between defense counsel and a defendant (which do not involve constitutional

rights which are always reserved for the defendant’s decision) to be resolved,

such as what questions should be asked of witnesses and what trial strategy

should be pursued? Despite disagreements about such matters, “lawyers are

charged with protecting their client’s interests.” Zapata v. Commonwealth, 676

S.W.3d 390, 401 (Ky. 2020).

      Ward inadequately alleges he did not understand he was being deprived

of the option to examine certain witnesses during the brief hearing on this

matter and would have objected if he had known. However, any error in this

                                        16
regard was harmless because the trial court’s decision on this matter was

reasonable under the circumstances. See Partin v. Commonwealth, 168 S.W.3d

23, 27-29 (Ky. 2005) (explaining that a defendant acting as co-counsel does not

have a constitutional right to personally cross-examine victims and intimidate

witnesses any more than a self-represented defendant would) superseded on

other grounds by statutory amendment as noted in Stansbury v. Commonwealth,

454 S.W.3d 293, 299 n.1 (Ky. 2015); Allen, 410 S.W.3d at 134 (explaining that

trial courts may appropriately place certain restrictions on a defendant’s right

to self-representation, including requiring defense counsel to cross-examine

victim-witnesses instead of the defendant).

      We review whether Ward’s right to hybrid representation was violated

when the trial court allowed counsel to overrule Ward’s strategic decision to

require counsel to recall Commonwealth witnesses during his case-in-chief so

that counsel could further impeach them. Prior to this time, counsel was

conducting the trial and Ward was largely acting as co-counsel in name only.

This was in accordance with the division of representation established pretrial.

      Each witness Ward wanted to call had already been vigorously cross-

examined by counsel during the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief. For those

witnesses whom he wanted to recall but could not personally question, it is

well established that the appropriate solution would have been for Ward to

prepare questions for counsel to use to question such witnesses on his behalf.

See Partin, 168 S.W.3d at 28-29.

                                       17
      The right to hybrid counsel does not give a defendant more rights than

defendants who chose to have counsel represent them or to engage in self-

representation; it instead combines these rights. If any error occurred, it was

harmless.

B. Were the Objections to the Firearm Toolmark Examiner’s Expert’s
   Testimony Adequately Preserved through the Motion in Limine, and if
   so, should this Testimony have been Excluded or Limited?—Partially
   Preserved

      In a five-page motion in limine, the defense sought to prohibit the

Commonwealth from:

      [E]liciting any testimony—direct or indirect—using terms such as
      “match,” stating an opinion to a degree of statistical or scientific
      certainty, or phrasing an opinion “to the exclusion of all other
      firearms.” More specifically, the Defense objects to any testimony
      concluding that the shell casings and other ballistic evidence were
      fired from the same firearm.

In support of that restriction, the defense discussed Garrett and argued that its

decision as to the appropriateness of admitting such evidence was limited

because it relied on United States v. Otero, 849 F.Supp.2d 425 (D.N.J. 2012),

aff’d 557 Fed. Appx. 146 (3rd Cir. 2014), and neither case considered the

PCAST Report (which was released after Otero and the trial court decision in

Garrett). The defense argued a more in-depth Daubert analysis in other

jurisdictions had revealed that the methods used in firearm toolmark analysis

“largely fails the fourth prong of Daubert” as the standard put out by the

Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners (AFTE) in its AFTE Theory of

                                       18
Identification 8 is entirely subjective, justifying limiting the degree of certainty

that Owens could express.

      The Commonwealth conceded to certain limitations as being appropriate

but cited to Garrett, an unpublished opinion, and its own list extra-

jurisdictional cases as to why it should still be acceptable for Owens to

conclude that all of the shell casings came from the same firearm.

      During the hearing regarding the defense’s motion in limine, given the

Commonwealth’s concessions, the only issue under consideration was whether

it would be proper for Owens to opine, consistent with her written report, that

the nine shell casings collected from the murder scene and the two shell

casings collected from the farm were fired from the same firearm. The trial

court specifically inquired as to whether the defense was requesting a Daubert

hearing. The defense replied “no” and then proceeded to criticize the

foundational validity of the science of firearm toolmark analysis.

      The defense acknowledged that the markings on the shell casings were

objective evidence, but explained it was concerned with how such objective

data was being subjectively interpreted. Specifically, the defense noted that

unlike fingerprints in which a certain number of corresponding “pits” were

required to determine a match, there was no such controlling criteria for

matching shell casings, and the PCAST Report had criticized that the supposed

      8 AFTE Theory of Identification as it Relates to Toolmarks, Association of Firearm

and Tool Mark Examiners, https://afte.org/about-us/what-is-afte/afte-theory-of-
identification (last visited Mar. 14, 2024).

                                          19
high match rate in studies was the result of a lack of appropriate “black-box”

studies and deeming inconclusive results as not being identification errors.

      However, the defense conceded that under existing case law in Kentucky

the methodology Owens used to make her firearm toolmark identification of the

shell casings could not be attacked as it had previously been ruled to satisfy

Daubert in Garrett. Therefore, the defense explained it was not challenging

Owens’s method or credentials. Rather, it sought to limit the certainty Owens

could express in testifying about her ultimate opinion.

      The defense requested that Owens be required to phrase her opinion in

more neutral terms and be limited to opining that the shell casings “were

consistent with having been fired from the same firearm.” (Emphasis added).

The trial court rejected this proposed limitation as “not much different,” but

stated the objection was preserved for higher court review.

      As previously mentioned, we had the parties specifically brief and argue

the sole issue of whether we should reconsider our ruling in Garrett regarding

whether firearm toolmark examiners could testify to their conclusions that

ballistic samples came from the same firearm. Ward’s counsel in supplemental

briefing and oral argument presented two alternative requests: to exclude such

evidence entirely or to limit expert identification testimony to “cannot be

excluded as having been fired from the same firearm.” (Emphasis added).

                                        20
      1. Admissibility of Expert Testimony on Firearm Toolmark
         Identification in Kentucky

      Expert opinion regarding firearm toolmark identification has long been

admitted in Kentucky. See Morris v. Commonwealth, 306 Ky. 349, 208 S.W.2d

58, 60 (1948).

      In Garrett, the defendant asked for a Daubert hearing, arguing firearm

toolmark identification did not meet the criteria set forth in KRE 702 for

admissibility because it was no longer considered reliable pursuant to a 2009

report produced by the National Research Council entitled Strengthening

Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (NRC Report). 9 Garrett,

534 S.W.3d at 221-22. After a Daubert hearing, the trial court upheld the

reliability of such expert testimony, allowing the firearm toolmark examiner to

testify that the fired bullets matched a particular firearm.

      Our Court affirmed, relying on Otero. While our Court acknowledged that

there was a subjective component to the analysis, it concluded a firearm

toolmark examiner could properly opine the bullets “were fired from the same

firearm” because this opinion was not couched in “‘absolute certainty’ so as to

require exclusion.” Garrett, 534 S.W.3d at 222-23. Our Court held that “[t]he

proper avenue for Garrett to address his concerns about the methodology and

      9 National Research Council, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States:

A Path Forward, The National Academies Press, 150-55 (2009), https://nap.
nationalacademies.org/read/12589/chapter/7#150 (section pertaining to firearms
toolmark identification).

                                         21
reliability of [the firearm toolmark examiner’s] testimony was through cross-

examination, as well as through the testimony of his own expert.” Id. at 223.

      2. Ward’s Specific Challenge

      Before trial, the defense sought to limit the scope of Owens’s expert

testimony through a motion in limine and specifically denied that it was

requesting a Daubert hearing. Ward now seeks to ban expert testimony

regarding firearm toolmark analysis as unreliable or limit the definitiveness of

such opinion testimony.

      Unfortunately for Ward, the defense did not appropriately preserve its

current challenge through its motion in limine, even though Owens’s testimony

was anticipated to be powerful, and the shell casings were the only physical

evidence which could connect Ward to the murders. Although Garrett was

potentially controlling as to who bore the burden of establishing whether such

evidence could be admitted and what limitations to such testimony were

appropriate, the admission of Owens’s expert testimony and how she could

present her expert opinion could still be challenged by the defense requesting a

Daubert hearing and providing an expert to support its arguments. Relief was

not precluded. Even if such a motion may have been denied consistent with

Garrett and Williams, this would have preserved the record to allow our Court

to consider whether such a hearing should have been granted based on the

arguments and materials submitted to the trial court for consideration.

      Given the substantive although not unchallenged authorities that Ward

was able to produce on appeal, including recent opinions from our sister courts

                                       22
retreating from the wholesale admission of such evidence, there were certainly

ample grounds to challenge whether Owens’s expert opinion should be limited

or qualified in some manner. While Garrett provides a basis for concluding that

firearm toolmark examiners’ expert testimony is generally admissible, it does

not justify failing to hold a Daubert hearing as to the appropriate limitations to

such testimony because the definitiveness of such identification is unsettled.

Although we understand that challenging what appears to be controlling law is

a difficult road to follow, forgoing a request for a Daubert hearing was a fatal

decision which precludes relief on appeal. See Tharp v. Commonwealth, 40

S.W.3d 356, 368 (Ky. 2000).

      While we acknowledge that Ward’s argument about limitations to be

placed on Owens’s expert opinion testimony were nominally preserved based

upon the defense motion in limine, such limitations could not appropriately be

explored without the accompanying request for a Daubert hearing to create a

record supporting why such limitations were appropriate. Additionally, the

limited relief the defense requested—that Owens’s testimony be modified to

state that both sets of shell casings “were consistent with having been fired

from the same firearm”—was abandoned on appeal in favor of the different and

more expansive limitation of “cannot be excluded as having been fired from the

same firearm.” We agree with the trial court that the original requested

limitation would not have much impact and, therefore, any error in failing to

grant this modification is harmless. We cannot provide Ward with specific relief

                                        23
that was not pursued and preserved below and must affirm the admission of

such evidence.

C. Did Detective Hull Offer Improper Opinion Testimony when he
   Interpreted Security Videos; Alternatively, should these Videos have
   been Excluded as Irrelevant? — Partially Preserved

      Detective Hull provided a timeline of events based on the evidence he had

reviewed which included his narration of timestamped black and white

surveillance video recorded by two cameras at a Little Caesar’s store. The jury

saw individual videos from each camera and then a spliced video.

      The Little Caesar’s videos captured a view of what Detective Hull opined

were two different vehicles driving on the street that provided the only

vehicular entrance into the apartment complex where Kramer and Aiden lived.

The recording from the front camera offered a somewhat better view. The back

camera captured a much smaller glimpse of a vehicle which was reflected from

the front of the apartment building doors in just a small corner of the video

recording. There appeared to be no illumination beyond the store lights and,

so, it was mostly the vehicles’ lights that were captured, along with vague

shapes of the automobiles.

      Without objection, the videos were introduced into evidence and

Detective Hull narrated his impressions. He stated that a vehicle appeared to

enter the apartment complex at 10:13 p.m., a second vehicle arrived at the

complex at 10:46 p.m. (which he opined was Kramer’s vehicle based on when

her phone connecting to her apartment Wi-Fi router at 10:51 p.m.), and then

the first vehicle reappeared at 11:31 p.m., pulling into a parking spot and being

                                       24
left running for about a minute. Detective Hull noted when the vehicle’s lights

went off, opined it was running based on a reflection of exhaust, noted that its

lights came back on at 11:33 p.m. and then the vehicle backed out and left.

         The Commonwealth Attorney asked Detective Hull: “So what do you

think we’ve just witnessed here, based on your investigation and viewing of

this?” Ward objected on the basis that Detective Hull was speculating as all

that could be seen were vehicles driving by and headlights, and that it was for

the jury to decide what this meant, not Detective Hall who was “not qualified to

do that.” The Commonwealth Attorney countered that it was appropriate for

Detective Hull to provide his theory of the case. Ward countered that he

believed that was appropriate for closing argument and not an appropriate

question.

         The trial court overruled the objection, stating that it was appropriate for

the detective to provide his conclusions based on his observations and, to the

extent this was weak evidence, that could be uncovered by cross-examination.

         Detective Hull responded he believed the video provided the timeframe of

what occurred between the time Kramer’s vehicle arrived and when the other

vehicle left, when “[Kramer] and Aiden were executed,” explaining that there

was no outgoing activity on Kramer’s phone after her phone connected to the

Wi-Fi.

         Detective Hull next testified that, although he could not make out a

license plate or who the operator was of the vehicle he suspected was driven by

the murderer, he took steps to determine what vehicle it may have been. He

                                          25
explained, based on pictures of Ward’s vehicle and stills of the suspicious

vehicle taken from the surveillance videos, he believed both vehicles had

similar features and could not exclude Ward’s vehicle from being the same

vehicle as in the video. Exhibits were admitted comparing the vehicles. 10

Detective Hull noted that when asked to identify vehicles he looks at distinct

features such as headlights, taillights, bumpers, any damage and whatever else

stood out.

      The defense objected, stating that Detective Hull had not been identified

or noticed as an expert, explaining counsel believed that he was getting into

expert testimony about his ability to determine if Ward’s vehicle matched the

vehicle in question, which was a matter for the jury to determine. The trial

court ruled that Detective Hull would be allowed to answer what he found

significant in comparing the images without being proffered as an expert, but

limited his further testimony, explaining “I’m not going to allow him to express

an opinion as to whose car this was.” Detective Hull then testified as to the

similarities he perceived regarding the back bumper, how the brake lights

reflected on a dead and curved area, the basic geometry of the front hood, front

quarter panel and headlights.

      During cross-examination, the defense refreshed Detective Hull’s

recollection and got him to acknowledge he had asked Christos in her interview

      10 The photographs of Ward’s vehicle were colored photographs taken in the

daytime with the lights off; the photographs of the second vehicle were black and
white, blurry, with the lights on and not taken at the same angle.

                                          26
if Ward could have borrowed her daughter’s boyfriend’s vehicle and he stated to

her that he did not think the vehicle he saw in the video was Ward’s vehicle.

Other witnesses testified that they were asked by police if Ward had ever

borrowed their vehicles and they all answered “no.”

      During the Commonwealth’s closing argument, it argued that the video

showed Ward’s vehicle rather than Sullivan’s, and the “quick in and out” of the

vehicle showed what a cold and calculated murderer Ward was.

      Ward argues that pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Evidence (KRE) 602, it

was improper for Detective Hull to interpret what was on the video because he

did not personally witness the recorded events and was a lay witness whose

testimony was limited per KRE 701, and that in doing so he impermissibly

invaded the province of the jury. He argues that Detective Hull’s testimony was

prejudicial where he indicated he could see Kramer’s vehicle, Ward’s vehicle, 11

and determine the timing of the murders, noting that a jury would be likely to

think a police officer’s testimony on such a matter was reliable. Ward argues

that the timing the detective assigned to the murders and the identification of

the suspicious vehicle as being his harmed him as it placed him at a murder

      11 We note Ward overstates Detective Hull’s testimony, repeatedly indicating

that Detective Hull identified the suspicious vehicle as being Ward’s. In fact, Detective
Hull never identified Ward’s vehicle as matching the vehicle he attributed to the
murderer. Earlier, and without objection, Detective Hull stated that he could not
exclude Ward’s vehicle. Detective Hull’s subsequent testimony was only that he
thought certain features were similar between the two vehicles.

                                           27
scene where there was virtually no evidence linking him to the murders and

eliminated Sullivan and various others as alternative perpetrators.

      Alternatively, Ward argues that the videos should have been excluded as

irrelevant, because the poor quality of the videos was of limited probative value

and was substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice pursuant

to KRE 403.

      Ward concedes that these issues are only partially preserved through his

prior objections and requests palpable error review to the extent the issues he

raises on appeal are unpreserved.

      Ward’s argument that all of Detective Hull’s interpretations of the videos

were improper is subject to palpable error review. Pursuant to Kentucky Rules

of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 10.26:

      A palpable error which affects the substantial rights of a party may
      be considered . . . by an appellate court on appeal, even though
      insufficiently raised or preserved for review, and appropriate relief
      may be granted upon a determination that manifest injustice has
      resulted from the error.

      In discussing the relevant rules about lay witnesses testifying about

videos, our Court in Morgan v. Commonwealth, 421 S.W.3d 388, 392 (Ky.

2014), explained as follows:

      KRE 701 limits opinion testimony by a lay witness to that which is
      “[r]ationally based on the perception of the witness; [and] . . .
      [h]elpful to a clear understanding of the witness’ testimony or the
      determination of a fact in issue.” KRE 701(a)-(b). In addition, KRE
      602 requires a witness to have personal knowledge before being
      allowed to testify about a subject.

      We further clarified in Boyd v. Commonwealth, 439 S.W.3d 126, 131 (Ky.

2014), that “narration of a video may be proper but only if it is comprised of

                                       28
opinions and inferences that are rationally based on the witnesses’ own

perceptions of which he had personal knowledge and that are helpful to the

jury.” (Emphasis added). In contrast, it is improper for witnesses to narrate a

video of “events that they did not perceive in real time.” Boyd v.

Commonwealth, 439 S.W.3d 126, 131-32 (Ky. 2014). If a video is unclear and

there is uncertainty as to which of the actions the person narrating the video

had personal knowledge, such narration should not be permitted. Kimmel v.

Commonwealth, 671 S.W.3d 230, 245 (Ky. 2023). Even when witnesses have

personal knowledge of the recorded events, narration is “improper when the

witnesses interpret the footage or offer an opinion.” Boyd v. Commonwealth,

439 S.W.3d 126, 131 (Ky. 2014). Compare with Cuzick v. Commonwealth, 276

S.W.3d 260, 266 (Ky. 2009) (appropriate to allow officers who participated in a

police chase to answer questions relating to videos captured by in car cameras

as this was “proper lay opinion testimony which was beneficial to the jury”);

Prescott v. Commonwealth, 572 S.W.3d 913, 928 (Ky. App. 2019) (confirming

that it was appropriate for a witness to narrate videos of “relatively poor

quality” where that witness “had firsthand knowledge of everything the videos

portrayed” as it “certainly helped clarify what the video portrayed in a manner

helpful to the jury”).

      We do not perceive any error in Detective Hull explaining where the video

was obtained, the locations shown in the videos, and the timing of the videos in

relationship to when security footage recorded Kramer at the McDonald’s and

when her Wi-Fi connected in her apartment complex. This was helpful for the

                                        29
jury to understand what it might be viewing in the overall timing of other

events.

      However, it was improper for Detective Hull to narrate the events

depicted in the videos, as he did not personally observe these events as they

occurred, and it was improper for him to interpret for the jury what he saw in

the videos since interpreting the videos should have been left to the jury. The

jury should have been allowed to interpret for itself whether the vehicle first

seen at 10:13 p.m. was the same vehicle seen at 11:31 p.m., what the vehicle

was doing between 11:31 p.m. and 11:33 p.m., and whether it was kept

running or not, and whether the vehicle that appeared shortly before Kramer’s

Wi-Fi connected was Kramer’s vehicle. However, we do not believe that

Detective Hull’s testimony as to these matters constituted palpable error.

      Similar errors were not concluded to be palpable in Kimmel where the

jury viewed the video and could independently interpret it, and the evidence

against the defendant was substantial. 671 S.W.3d at 245. Detective Hull’s

testimony was certainly not definitive on the matter, and we believe it was

harmless.

      As to the testimony regarding comparing Ward’s vehicle to the vehicle

Detective Hull speculated was used by the murderer, Ward permitted without

objection for Detective Hull to testify that he could not exclude Ward’s vehicle,

and to explain the commonalities he would look for in comparing vehicles, only

objecting when Ward believed Detective Hull was about to give an opinion that

Ward’s vehicle was a match. However, that objection successfully prevented

                                        30
Detective Hull from being able to state such an option, and he only proceeded

to testify as to similarities. As the jury had the stills from the video and

photographs of Ward’s car before it during deliberation and could ask to view

the videos again (and did as to one video), jurors could judge for themselves

whether they thought these vehicles were similar or a match. So, while it was

error to permit such testimony, we believe this testimony was harmless,

especially in light of the effective cross-examination. We also believe it is within

the jury’s common knowledge that many vehicles may appear similar as vehicle

manufacturers make many identical vehicles and the stills did not reveal the

color of the vehicle or any striking identifying characteristics.

        We disagree with Ward that the Commonwealth did not satisfy the low

bar for relevance. While the video recordings were of rather poor quality and

were certainly not definitive regarding what took place inside Kramer’s

apartment, they are sufficient to meet this standard as these videos could

depict the movement of vehicles which was relevant to the timeline of when

Kramer arrived home and when a vehicle possibly connected to the murders

left.

D. Was Ward Denied his Right to Silence when Questions were Asked
   about his Phone Encryption and Preventing Police from Accessing
   Information on his Phone? – Partially Preserved

        After Ward was arrested, a search warrant was issued which included

seizure of his phones. Once his current phone was in police custody, the police

were unable to access its contents.

                                         31
      During the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief, various witnesses provided

testimony that Ward touted the Wickr app as providing phone privacy and

either asked them to install that app or assisted them with installing it on their

phones.

      During Detective VonDerHaar’s testimony, Ward objected preemptively to

anticipated testimony from him indicating that Ward would not give the police

the password to unlock his cell phone, arguing this was akin to commenting on

his right to remain silent. The Commonwealth agreed not to specifically ask if

Ward refused to give the police his passwords and the trial court determined

that the detective could appropriately testify that he could not access the

contents of Ward’s phone because it was encrypted. Detective VonDerHaar

testified in accordance with this restriction.

      When Ward took the stand, he testified he had installed the Wickr app

on his phone to conceal messages as he believed it would be helpful for being a

hypnotist, explaining it would allow him to maintain privacy which was

important in such a profession. During cross-examination, the following

exchange took place:

      CW:          You made it impossible for anyone to look into your
                   phone?

      Ward:        Nuh, if you wish to consider the inherent encryption
                   on the phone, but as was testified to, Aiden also had
                   the same phone. That’s just part of that phone’s
                   operation [sic] system.

      CW:          But Aiden didn’t have Wickr, you did.

      Ward:        I did.

                                        32
      CW:          And you installed it on [Fiely’s] phone?

      Ward:        I did not install it. She installed it herself.

      CW:          Okay, I’m sorry. You installed it on [Palmer’s] phone?

      Ward:        I did. At their request.

      CW:          So, your testimony—

      Ward:        Asked if willing to do it, would, asked me to install it.

      Ward argues on appeal that this questioning and the subsequent

answers to it violated his right to silence. Ward argues: “The Commonwealth

clearly invited the jury to infer guilt from [Ward’s] refusal to turn over his

password.”

      Relevance is the fundamental bedrock on which all evidence initially

becomes admissible at trial. Ward’s argument and the Commonwealth’s

response thereto, assume that the police’s inability to access the contents of

Ward’s cell phone is relevant to establishing whether Ward murdered Kramer

and Aiden. However, there is no logical reason why this is so.

      While the police secured a warrant to seize the phone and access its

contents, this is no more than an acknowledgment of the fact that information

relevant a crime potentially could be found within it and not any kind of proof

that such kind of information did exist. A cell phone which is seized but whose

contents cannot be accessed is a complete unknown. A locked cell phone either

has incriminating content in the data contained therein or it does not. But if

the cell phone data is never accessed, it cannot be determined if its contents

are incriminating and therefore relevant.

                                         33
      Similarly, the fact that a cell phone is password protected has no

relevance. Password protection on cell phones was and continues to be

ubiquitous, and other newer protections such as biometric access are similarly

gaining widespread use. Encryption can be built into a cell phone’s operating

system, with some companies specifically designing cell phones to protect

privacy through heightened security measures. 12 It is also not unusual for

people to protect their privacy by using specific apps. Ward using the Wickr

app, suggesting its use to other people, and recommending or assisting in its

installation is totally irrelevant to the decision of whether he is a murderer. 13

Having a password and/or encryption protection on a cell phone is neither

evidence of guilt nor provides for an inference that any evidence of guilt may be

found therein. It is equivalent to a person locking their vehicle or house door.

      The right to privacy in one’s effects/possessions is enshrined in the

Fourth Amendment and in Section 10 of the Kentucky Constitution. The

contents of a cell phone are entitled to such protection. Riley v. California, 573

U.S. 373, 401 (2014). See also Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296, 309-

11 (2018) (determining a warrant is required to access data to map a person’s

      12 Apple products such as the iPhone have hardware security, system security,

encryption and data protection, app security, and services security as part of Apple’s
basic platform. Apple Platform Security, Apple, https://support.apple.com/guide
/security/welcome/web (last visited Mar. 14, 2024).
      13 We are uncertain why the Commonwealth “made a mountain out of this

molehill” by repeatedly asking witnesses about Ward’s conduct relating to this app.

                                          34
movement based on cell phone records); Commonwealth v. Reed, 647 S.W.3d

237 (Ky. 2022).

      When a search warrant is granted for a cell phone, whether the police in

fact gain access to its data is up to them. There is no duty for citizens to assist

police in criminal investigations. This is not altered by a warrant being

served. 14

      Requiring such a duty to assist the police in accessing the contents of

one’s phone or apps would turn the right to privacy found in the Fourth

Amendment/Ky Const § 10 on its head and run afoul of the right not to

incriminate oneself found in the Fifth Amendment/Ky. Const. § 11. It is well

established that a defendant’s choice to remain silent during a custodial

interrogation cannot be used against a defendant by the Commonwealth to

establish guilt. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Exercising one’s

constitutional rights cannot be offered as evidence of guilt. Commonwealth v.

McCarthy, 628 S.W.3d 18, 36 (Ky. 2021). Thus, Ward had no duty to assist the

police in gaining access to the contents of his cell phone and his exercise of his

constitutional rights cannot be used against him as evidence of his guilt.

      14 In recognition that citizens often will not assist police in gaining entry to their

homes in the execution of a warrant, various jurisdictions have statutory warrant
requirements which allow police to break into buildings to execute a warrant if they
knock and are refused entry. The Fourth Amendment is not violated where exigent
circumstances require breaking in to execute a warrant without knocking and allowing
occupants to voluntarily grant entry. United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65 (1998). See
Adcock v. Commonwealth, 967 S.W.2d 6, 11 (Ky. 1998) (holding ruse entry is
permissible under the Fourth Amendment to execute a warrant).

                                            35
      We recognize there are many reasons why someone who has not

committed a crime would refuse to assist the police in its investigation in rifling

through that person’s personal effects. Ward’s lifestyle choices and profession

would certainly provide him with ample reasons to continue to safeguard his

privacy to the extent possible. No inference of guilt can thereby be made from

Ward’s failure to voluntarily assist the police in such endeavor. “In most

circumstances silence is so ambiguous that it is of little probative force” and

“also has a significant potential for prejudice.” United States v. Hale, 422 U.S.

171, 176, 180 (1975). This makes Ward’s failure to help investigators

irrelevant.

      As the unknown contents of Ward’s cell phone are irrelevant, his use of a

password and encryption on his phone (as well as his use of the Wickr app) is

irrelevant, and his failure to help the police access the contents of his phone is

irrelevant, no testimony regarding any of these issues should have been

allowed, yet a substantial amount of testimony about this subject was elicited.

This trial demonstrates why these issues should have never been delved into in

the first place.

      However, whether we consider the issue of the admission of this

testimony under relevance or as under Ward’s preferred argument that it

violated his right to silence, ultimately such testimony was harmless or not

palpable error.

      We are satisfied that as to Detective VonDerHaar’s testimony during the

Commonwealth’s case-in-chief, though irrelevant, was not a direct comment on

                                        36
Ward’s right to silence. Detective VonDerHaar’s comment—that he could not

access the contents of Ward’s cell phone due to encryption—may have left the

jury wondering why he could not access Ward’s cell phone but this was not

directly connected to what Ward did or did not say or do. There was no

intimation in the questions posed to the detective or in his answers that Ward

was asked for his password and refused to provide it.

      While the question posed to Ward appears to have been inviting the jury

to find guilt based on his failure to voluntarily cooperate with police and grant

access to the contents of his cell phone, and we believe this to be improper

because it was unknown whether there was anything incriminating to be

accessed had his cell phone been unlocked, we do not believe this testimony

realistically had any impact on the jury’s verdict. The error in permitting such

testimony was harmless as to Detective VonDerHaars’s testimony and not

palpable as to Ward’s testimony. Simply put, this was a minor error on a topic

of limited significance. Therefore, there is no basis for reversal on this ground.

E. Did Prosecutorial Misconduct Deprive Ward of a Fair Trial—
   Unpreserved

      Ward argues that prosecutorial misconduct occurred during the

Commonwealth’s closing argument which deliberately misstated various facts

in evidence: (1) Palmer’s testimony about discussing silencers with Ward; (2)

Weitz’s testimony about why DNA might not be on shell casings; (3) grossly

overstating the certainty of Owens’s identification; and (4) stating a blood stain

on the wall was Aiden’s fingerprint. Ward did not make any objection and

requests palpable error review.

                                        37
      We recognize that it can be problematic to object during opening

statements and closing arguments. Such objections can be a tactical way to

interrupt the speaker’s concentration, and in recognition of that danger some

trial courts prohibit objections during closing arguments. Our precedent

requires that if a trial court permits objections during argument, prompt

objections must be made. Wallace v. Commonwealth, 478 S.W.3d 291, 297 (Ky.

2015).

      If a trial court does not allow objections during opening statements or

closing arguments, any objections which are made immediately after a party’s

opening statement (before any testimony) or closing argument (before the jury

is excused) should be considered timely and preserved, as the error is properly

brought thereby to the attention of the trial court as soon as may be permitted.

Under these circumstances, such objections are sufficiently contemporaneous

to fulfill the purposes of Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 9.22 and

preserve such objections for review because at such a time curative

instructions can be rendered to the jury if needed. See Polk v. Greer, 222

S.W.3d 263, 265 (Ky. App. 2007) (determining that an objection made to an

opening statement after its conclusion and less than a minute after the claimed

error occurred satisfied the “contemporaneous objection” requirement of

Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 46, which is analogous to RCr 9.22,

because it afforded the trial court an opportunity to cure the error in a timely

fashion before the trial moved on from this phase); Weaver v. Commonwealth,

955 S.W.2d 722, 728 (Ky. 1997) (explaining that the reasoning behind the

                                       38
contemporaneous objection requirement was to allow the trial court to have

“the opportunity to consider whether an admonition would cure the error”).

However, the defense did not make an objection during the Commonwealth’s

closing argument, or immediately thereafter its conclusion and, thus, we must

conduct palpable error review.

      Prosecutorial misconduct is “a prosecutor’s improper or illegal act

involving an attempt to persuade the jury to wrongly convict a defendant or

assess an unjustified punishment.” Noakes v. Commonwealth, 354 S.W.3d 116,

121 (Ky. 2011) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009)) (brackets and

ellipses omitted). While prosecutorial misconduct can occur through an

improper closing argument, we must keep in mind that prosecutors have wide

latitude in giving closing arguments and are free to draw any and all

reasonable inferences from the evidence. Hall v. Commonwealth, 645 S.W.3d

383, 398 (Ky. 2022).

      “Any consideration on appeal of alleged prosecutorial misconduct must

center on the overall fairness of the trial. In order to justify reversal, the

misconduct of the prosecutor must be so serious as to render the entire trial

fundamentally unfair.” Stopher v. Commonwealth, 57 S.W.3d 787, 805 (Ky.

2001) (internal citation omitted). “For unpreserved prosecutorial misconduct to

be reversible, it must have been flagrant.” St. Clair v. Commonwealth, 451

S.W.3d 597, 640 (Ky. 2014)

      To determine whether improper conduct is flagrant and requires
      reversal, this Court weighs four factors: (1) whether the remarks
      tended to mislead the jury or to prejudice the accused; (2) whether

                                         39
      they were isolated or extensive; (3) whether they were deliberately
      or accidentally placed before the jury; and (4) the strength of the
      evidence against the accused.

Barrett v. Commonwealth, 677 S.W.3d 326, 334 (Ky. 2023).

      To properly evaluate Ward’s allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, we

must put these four comments in the context of both closing arguments. It is

important to note that these were lengthy and far-ranging closing arguments.

The defense closing argument was fifty-four minutes long and the

Commonwealth’s closing argument was forty minutes long. These closing

arguments covered many more topics than recited here and the complained of

errors were a small percentage of the total arguments.

      1. Silencer

      Ward argues that the Commonwealth changed Palmer’s testimony that

she had talked about silencers with Ward and he stated, “they can easily be

made from home” to “I know how to make a homemade silencer.”

      In the defense closing argument, the defense specifically argued that

there was no evidence that a silencer was made and instead neighbors perhaps

simply did not want to come forward and get involved. The defense also argued

that Palmer made up a lot of things.

      The Commonwealth countered this evidence by referring to what Ward

supposedly told Palmer twice, once in conjunction with why no one heard the

gunshots and once in conjunction with why Palmer had reason to fear Ward:

      Nine shots total. Nobody in that apartment complex heard one
      shot. You know why? Defense, defendant told you, just like he told
      [Palmer]. “I know how to make a homemade silencer.”
      ...

                                       40
      He told [Palmer], “I know how to make a homemade silencer.”

      2. Gloves

      Ward argues that the Commonwealth misrepresented Weitz’s testimony

that DNA might not be on the shell casings for a variety of reasons including

that the individual wore gloves by stating “Weitz . . . explained to you, it’s very

simple why the defendant’s DNA would not be there. He wore gloves.”

      During the defense closing argument, the defense argued that the

murderer had left fingerprints on the glass door, and a bloody fingerprint on

the wall after touching Aiden. The defense relied on this to establish that the

killer did not wear gloves because the fingerprint did not belong to Ward,

Sullivan or the police.

      The Commonwealth thus needed to emphasize the possibility that the

killer wore gloves and deemphasize the absence of such DNA evidence with the

importance of the firearm toolmark identification evidence. The Commonwealth

argued that the lack of DNA on the shell casings was easily explainable, first

arguing you are “certainly not going to have DNA on the casings when you’re

wearing gloves.” Then later, the Commonwealth connected this explanation to

its expert: “Steven Weitz, the ATF lab, explained to you, it’s very simple why the

defendant’s DNA would not be there, he wore gloves. One can conceal their

DNA. You know what they can’t conceal? The distinctive markings of their

murder weapon.” Finally, the Commonwealth stated that Aiden’s DNA being on

the shell casings made sense as DNA transfer occurred from the carpet where

                                         41
the shell casings fell but emphasized again “His [the murderer’s] DNA’s not

there because he wore gloves.”

      3. Firearms Toolmark Identification

      Ward argues that the Commonwealth Attorney committed misconduct

as, despite accepting the limitation that Owens could not state her opinion to a

degree of statistical or scientific certainty or phrase her opinion “to the

exclusion of other firearms,” argued about the firearm toolmark identification of

the shell casings “it’s credible, it’s irrefutable evidence. It is beyond a

reasonable doubt evidence.” Ward argues that the prosecutor’s arguments

about the strength of such evidence constituted a gross overstatement.

      The defense vigorously argued in its closing argument its theory that

confirmation bias prevented the police from investigating other possible

theories of how the murders may have occurred, including that Novak may

have been the murderer as spurned on by jealousy that Sullivan was now

involved with Kramer or that the murders could have been the result of a drug

deal gone bad. The defense explained that the original investigation into Ward

started with Kramer’s text about Ward being at the Starbucks where she

worked, and the police identifying the wrong person on the Starbucks video as

being Ward, and once the police identified Ward as a stalker, they saw

everything else through that lens and were eager to confirm this supposition

with each piece of evidence, including Owens’s firearm toolmark identification

to support this specious theory.

                                          42
      Specifically, as to the firearm toolmark identification evidence regarding

the shell casings, the defense argued this evidence was not credible, not

competent, was not a science, was a subjective opinion with a high degree of

error and was nothing like DNA testing which was the gold standard and

definitive in identifying and excluding people. The defense explained that

without a murder weapon, there was no firearm to test as a control and that

Owens had not tested the available .22 firearms used at the farm to see if they

produced matching shell casings. The defense showed pictures of the shell

casings Owens compared and expressed an opinion that the jury could see that

the shape of the fire rim marks was different and the ejector marks were

different between these samples, which either meant that different firearms

were used or that the same firearm rendered different results, either of which

was problematic for identification. The defense reminded the jury that the shell

casings located at the farm had been exposed to the elements and a

lawnmower over the nine months they remained there. The defense emphasized

that Owens did not even know what type of firearm was used to produce the

shell casings, having testified that it could have been either a .22 pistol or a .22

rifle, and that she could not identify what brand of firearm was used.

      To counter such argument, the Commonwealth displayed photos of four

shell casings on a screen during its closing argument for approximately

seventeen minutes while repeatedly returning to the importance of this

evidence. The Commonwealth argued there could be no confirmation bias

because inanimate objects could not be biased. The Commonwealth stated that

                                        43
firearm toolmark evidence was sound physical evidence that had been accepted

for one hundred years and confirmed that Ward killed Kramer and Aiden. The

Commonwealth argued that the shell casings and the markings on them spoke

for Kramer and identified the murderer as Ward. Later, the Commonwealth

returned to the importance of this evidence and stated: “100 years this has

been around for forensic examinations. It’s credible, it’s irrefutable evidence. It

is beyond a reasonable doubt evidence.” The Commonwealth followed up by

explaining again that after a microscopic examination Owens had identified

both sets of shell casings as being fired from the same firearm. Finally, as to

Aiden’s murder, the Commonwealth explained that the toolmarks on the shell

casings told Aiden’s story, how he died and told the jury that Ward was his

killer.

          4. Bloody Fingerprint

          Ward argued that despite the crime scene photos showing that Aiden had

no blood on his hands and testimony from Detective Cochran that Aiden bled

from the position where he was located, the Commonwealth Attorney

committed prosecutorial misconduct by arguing in her closing argument that a

blood stain on the wall was “Aiden’s ridge print. That’s him before he is falling

to the ground.” Ward argues telling the jury Aiden was alive and walking

around while suffering the pain of being shot inflamed the jury.

          As discussed infra, the defense argued that the bloody fingerprint

belonged to the real killer who was not wearing gloves. In this context, the

Commonwealth was left having to explain that someone else must have made

                                          44
this fingerprint, since its theory was that Ward had not left any fingerprints

because he was wearing gloves (this also tied in with its argument that Ward

practiced for the murder by target shooting at the farm while wearing gloves).

The defense argument thus spurred the Commonwealth to find someone else

who logically could have left the fingerprint.

      This is demonstrated by how the Commonwealth addressed this

argument:

      The bloodstain on the wall, defense brought that up, you all have
      the photo of it, it’s tiny. You heard from KSP lab it was Aiden’s
      blood. I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, Aiden wasn’t just
      shot once and died. He was shot three times. That’s Aiden’s ridge
      print. That’s him before he’s falling to the ground.

      5. Do the Erroneous Assertions as a Whole, Qualify as Flagrant
         Misconduct which would Require Reversal?

      When considered collectively, these remarks had a low potential to

mislead the jury and prejudice the accused as they were relatively isolated

(both within the Commonwealth’s closing argument as a whole and even

regarding most of the topics being canvased) and appear to have been a

combination of deliberate and accidental remarks. The statements which were

couched as witness statements rather than inferences regarding the silencer

and the gloves, were mildly misleading, isolated, and likely accidentally placed

before the jury with poor wording; overall, they were harmless considering the

evidence.

      The statement about the strength of the firearm toolmark identification

testimony and the statement about Aiden’s ridge print were misleading and

deliberate. However, given the vigorous and robust closing argument by the

                                        45
defense, that these statements were made in the context of countering such

arguments (thus showing they were not uncontested), and the overall length of

the closing arguments which contained ample support for a conviction, they

were unlikely to prejudice the defense.

      Having considered these factors, overall they weigh against the conduct

being flagrant. On balance, we do not believe these prosecutorial errors require

reversal as they were not so “egregious as to undermine the essential fairness

of Ward’s trial.” Barrett, 677 S.W.3d at 335.

F. Should Ward’s Motion for a Directed Verdict have been Granted?—
   Preserved

      Ward moved for a directed verdict in accordance with CR 50.01 on the

basis that there was simply insufficient evidence to convict him.

      In considering whether a motion for directed verdict should be granted,

“[t]he trial court must draw all fair and reasonable inferences from the evidence

in favor of the party opposing the motion, and a directed verdict should not be

given unless the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.”

Commonwealth v. Sawhill, 660 S.W.2d 3, 5 (Ky. 1983).

      If the evidence is sufficient to induce a reasonable juror to believe
      beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, a directed
      verdict should not be given. For the purpose of ruling on the
      motion, the trial court must assume that the evidence for the
      Commonwealth is true, but reserving to the jury questions as to
      the credibility and weight to be given to such testimony.

Commonwealth v. Benham, 816 S.W.2d 186, 187 (Ky. 1991).

      “When the denial of a properly preserved directed verdict motion is

challenged on appeal, the standard of review is . . . whether, viewing the

                                          46
evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, any rational juror

could have found all the elements of the crime.” Quisenberry v. Commonwealth,

336 S.W.3d 19, 35 (Ky. 2011).

      Given the testimony by witnesses that Ward was angry at Kramer and

made threatening statements about what he wanted to do to her, and the rest

of the evidence which was properly admitted at trial, the Commonwealth could

establish motive, opportunity and connect Ward to the crime. Ward’s

arguments are in the nature of a closing argument in which he adopts the most

favorable interpretation of the evidence, rather than considering the evidence in

the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. Accordingly, it is appropriate to

affirm the denial of Ward’s motions for directed verdict.

                                III. CONCLUSION

      While harmless errors did occur in Ward’s trial, he has failed to establish

any reversible errors. Our consideration of the theory, research, and practice

behind firearm toolmark analysis has left us with many questions and few

answers as to how such evidence should be treated by our trial courts.

Certainly, it gives us pause that such experts reach definitive conclusions

based on subjective visual inspections, given the limitations of current research

to establish the accuracy of such conclusions. However, the defense motion in

limine was inadequate to preserve this claimed error; preservation required a

proper request for a Daubert hearing and expert testimony to determine any

limitations on the admission of such evidence. Under these circumstances, it is

simply not appropriate for us to rule that the Boone Circuit Court abused its

                                       47
discretion where it appropriately followed our established precedent as to what

could be properly admitted in declining to grant the motion in limine beyond

the Commonwealth’s prior concessions. Accordingly, we affirm Ward’s

convictions and sentence.

      All sitting. VanMeter, C.J.; Conley, Lambert, and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Bisig, Keller, Nickell, JJ., concur in result only.

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:

Shannon Dupree
Kayley V. Barnes
Assistant Public Advocates

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:

Russell M. Coleman
Attorney General of Kentucky

Bryan D. Morrow
Assistant Solicitor General

Todd Ferguson
Assistant Attorney General

                                         48