Opinion ID: 2631199
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: Counsel's Preparation for Testimony Regarding Stenson's Jeans

Text: Petitioner asserts that Leatherman's performance in preparing for testimony regarding what Leatherman himself considered the most critical item of evidence, Stenson's jeans, was deficient. PRP at 51-52. Although the pair of jeans was crucial evidence, prejudice must still be shown, not assumed. Petitioner argues that Leatherman's handling of expert witness Rod Englert was deficient. PRP at 48. A determination of whether performance was deficient need not be made because the State rightly observes that Englert was never called to testify and had no effect on the trial one way or the other. State's Resp. at 70. Prejudice to Petitioner has not been shown. Leatherman said that, after another lawyer had some unflattering things to say about Englert, Leatherman replaced him with another blood-spatter expert, Stewart James. Dep. of Leatherman at 37-38. The defense simply replaced one expert with another. According to Leatherman, all three experts, Englert, James, and prosecution witness Mike Grubb, reconstructed the crime in the same way. Dep. of Leatherman at 52. Petitioner notes that Leatherman failed to cross-examine Grubb about the chain of custody of the jeans. PRP at 49. Petitioner implies that the chain of custody was handled in an improper manner. Id. Written testimony from a witness who might have supported this claim has been stricken. The State cites Leatherman saying that the jeans were handled in the usual manner. State's Resp. at 71; Dep. of Leatherman at 97-98. Without more from Petitioner, deficient performance cannot be established here unless a lapse in the handling of evidence has been shown. The final area of concern raised by Petitioner is that Leatherman failed to cross-examine Grubb on the importance of being able to microscopically examine the blood spots themselves rather than just using a photograph to reach an opinion as to the nature of the spots. PRP at 50. Petitioner's witness, Kay Sweeney, declares that one cannot confirm, without a microscopic examination, whether the spots of blood on Stenson's jeans were dripped blood or contact, transferred blood. Decl. of Kay Sweeney at 2. But it is difficult to see why it matters whether the blood was dripped or transferred. Grubb testified at trial that it makes no difference: Q. Mr. Grubb, your ultimate conclusion with regard to this case, that is, with regard to how that transferhow that blood got on the defendant's trousers, was what? A. That contact with Mr. Hoerner or his surroundings as he was found at the scene does not explain those blood stains on the knee of the jeans; that they got there by some contact before Mr. Hoerner came to his resting position. Q. Does that conclusion, is that your conclusion whether or not the spattering on those trousers is dripping blood or contact blood? A. That's true. Either way. RTP at 1405-06. Since Petitioner has not explained what may be gained by establishing that the blood was caused one way or the other, he has not shown how he was prejudiced. We reject Petitioner's claim on this issue.