SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases

to attend his trial violated his constitutional right to
due process and deprived him of a fair trial. (pp. 12-19)
The admission of irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial
evidence regarding Greineder's extramarital sexual
activities deprived him of a fair trial. (pp. 19-26)
The post-trial recantation of key opinion testimony
by the Commonwealth's footprint expert warrants a new
trial. (pp. 26-35) An experiment conducted by the
deliberating jury exposed the jury to prejudicial
extraneous information, requiring a new trial. (pp. 35-
43) Greineder was deprived of constitutionally effective
assistance of counsel by his counsel's failure to move:
(1) to exclude scientifically unreliable DNA test results
or challenge those results at trial; (2) to suppress a
receipt seized pursuant to a general search warrant; and
(3) to suppress the fruits of an unconstitutional car
search. (pp. 43-64) The myriad errors committed at trial
warrant relief under M.G.L.c. 278,S333. (pp. 64-65)
ARGUMENT
I. GREINEDER WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL.
A. Statement of Relevant Facts.
Trial commenced on May 21, 2001 with jury selection.
Prospective jurors were summoned one at a time for
individual voir dire, which took place in a small
courtroom, Room 8 . z. 1/5. Judge Chernoff explained:
2