Opinion ID: 1822646
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 24

Heading: Testimony of Dr. Reena Roy

Text: Dr. Reena Roy, a forensic serologist, testified on behalf of the State at Lotter's trial. Roy performed a presumptive test on the gloves found with the murder weapons and confirmed that there was some blood present. She testified that she did not conduct further tests to determine if the blood was human because she had received a letter from the defense attorney requesting that she save the sample for independent analysis. Lotter sought to raise this issue as plain error on direct appeal, but we declined to address it. At the postconviction evidentiary hearing, Lotter's trial counsel testified that he did not object to Roy's testimony despite his awareness of case law on the issue of its admissibility. He stated that he did not object because he elected to establish on cross-examination that it was Nissen's counsel who sent the letter to Roy, noting, That [letter] then fed into my theory that it was ... Nissen who was trying to keep the evidence from the jury and from law enforcement by stopping Dr. Roy from examining the samples. Based on this evidence, we conclude trial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision, and in any event, Lotter has failed to demonstrate any prejudice. Lotter is not entitled to postconviction relief with respect to this or any of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.