SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases 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
First of all, we are in Room 8. The record should reflect that we are in Room 8 for the purposes of conducting a non-public individual voir dire of the jurors. - Id. at 37; A. 127.’ The defendant was formally placed at the bar for trial in this same private setting. a. Judge Chernoff made no findings on the record to justify conducting this portion of the trial in private. After an adequate number of indifferent jurors were identified, the process continued in Courtroom 10. z. II/246. There, jurors were seated, peremptory challenges were exercised, and the jury was sworn. z. at 279. B. Summary of Applicable Law. A public trial is guaranteed by the First and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution. Press-Enterorise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 464 U.S. 501, 505 (1984); Waller v. Georsia, 467 U.S. 33, 46 (1984). Closure of any portion of a trial requires ”an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.(( Press-Enternrise, 464 U. S. at 510. “The guarantees of open public proceedings in criminal trials cover proceedings for the voir dire examination of potential jurors concerning their qualifications to serve. ‘I Commonwealth v. Gordon, 422 Mass. 816, 823 (1996). Prior to trial. the judge stated that he had met with members of the media “who have an interest in being present during the public part of this case.“ E. 5/18/01 at 3 (emphasis added). 3
- Page 1 and 2: NORFOLK. ss. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSAC
- Page 3 and 4: 3. Greineder's direct testimony. .
- Page 5 and 6: VI. VII. d. Greineder is entitled t
- Page 7 and 8: 4 . Counsel's failure to move to su
- Page 9 and 10: Miller v. Harvey, 566 F.2d 879 (4th
- Page 11 and 12: Commonwealth v. Carter, 39 Mass. Ap
- Page 13 and 14: Commonwealth v. Martinez, 425 Mass.
- Page 15 and 16: FitzDatrick v. Allen, 410 Mass. 791
- Page 17: STATEMENT OF THE CASE Dirk K. Grein
- Page 21 and 22: logistical reasons for closure.3 As
- Page 23 and 24: inculpatory DNA test results linkin
- Page 25 and 26: testified that Greineder could not
- Page 27 and 28: This Court held in Bmmonwealth v. N
- Page 29 and 30: of his Miranda rights. a. at 112-12
- Page 31 and 32: up Ms. Greineder . Greineder replie
- Page 33 and 34: waives that right and makes volunta
- Page 35 and 36: that Greineder had never mentioned
- Page 37 and 38: they render the trial fundamentally
- Page 39 and 40: Prior to trial, the Commonwealth ma
- Page 41 and 42: gets to that point [i.e., to commit
- Page 43 and 44: States, 17 F.2d 973, 976 (5th Cir.
- Page 45 and 46: 399 Mass. 17, 21 n.5 (1987). In Gal
- Page 47 and 48: 1. Rebeiro's trial testimony was fa
- Page 49 and 50: As noted above, many jurisdictions
- Page 51 and 52: deliberations. Judge Chernoff is co
- Page 53 and 54: where the jury had experimented wit
- Page 55 and 56: jury, if “a judge learns that a j
- Page 57 and 58: consideration of the factors outlin
- Page 59 and 60: moments" of insight, which "helped"
- Page 61 and 62: Commonwealth v. Curnin, 409 Mass. 2
- Page 63 and 64: In evaluating a claim of ineffectiv
- Page 65 and 66: DNA test results withstands scrutin
- Page 67 and 68: In any event, if filing such a moti
First of all, we are in Room 8. The record<br />
should reflect that we are in Room 8 for the<br />
purposes of conducting a non-public individual<br />
voir dire of the jurors.<br />
- Id. at 37; A. 127.’ The defendant was formally placed at<br />
the bar for trial in this same private setting. a.<br />
Judge Chernoff made no findings on the record to<br />
justify conducting this portion of the trial in private.<br />
After an adequate number of indifferent jurors were<br />
identified, the process continued in Courtroom 10. z.<br />
II/246. There, jurors were seated, peremptory challenges<br />
were exercised, and the jury was sworn. z. at 279.<br />
B. Summary of Applicable Law.<br />
A public trial is guaranteed by the First and Sixth<br />
Amendments to the Constitution. Press-Enterorise Co. v.<br />
Superior Court of Cal., 464 U.S. 501, 505 (1984); Waller<br />
v. Georsia, 467 U.S. 33, 46 (1984). Closure of any<br />
portion of a trial requires ”an overriding interest based<br />
on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher<br />
values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.((<br />
Press-Enternrise, 464 U. S. at 510. “The guarantees of<br />
open public proceedings in criminal trials cover<br />
proceedings for the voir dire examination of potential<br />
jurors concerning their qualifications to serve. ‘I<br />
Commonwealth v. Gordon, 422 <strong>Mass</strong>. 816, 823 (1996).<br />
Prior to trial. the judge stated that he had met with<br />
members of the media “who have an interest in being present during<br />
the public part of this case.“ E. 5/18/01 at 3 (emphasis added).<br />
3
Change language