SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases

eviewers in filtering out portions of the raw data and
selecting peaks to label as true alleles. As in Evans,
McNickles, and Nardi, Dr. Cotton was simply reporting the
results of another scientist's exercise of judgment and
discretion. Those inculpatory results were effectively
insulated from confrontation and cross-examination as a
result of this improper, second-hand presentation. Given
the importance of the DNA evidence to the Commonwealth's
case, this preserved error was clearly not harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt. It was prejudicial error,
requiring reversal of Greineder's conviction.
111. GREINEDER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BY
THE PROSECUTOR'S CROSS-EXAMINATION AND CLOSING
ARGUMXNT.
A. Statement of Relevant Facta
1. Timeline.
When the police responded to Morse Pond, Greineder
was first questioned by Detective McDermott and then by
Trooper Foley. D. 6/249-262; 10/37-61. Greineder was
then taken to the Wellesley police station, where he
called Attorney Terry Seqal, who came to the station.7
Id. at 63-72. Police later applied for a search warrant
for Greineder's residence, which they executed early the
following morning. At that: the, Greineder was informed
The motion judge found that after attorney segal arrived
and spoke to Ereinecier, Greineder informed McDermott Chat Begal had
told him not ta speak wi.th them anymore. &. 16.
12