SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases

that Greineder had never mentioned this detail before was
cause to deem it a fabrication. This is exactly the
argument prohibited by law! Greineder was entitled to
wait until trial to disclose his detailed account, and
the fact that he chose to do so was not grounds for
arguing that he should be disbelieved.
This serious error was compounded by the
prosecutor's exploitation of Greineder's right toprepare
for trial and to be present during trial by repeatedly
implying that Greineder's testimony was fabricated to
meet the Commonwealth's case-in-chief. Further, he
implied that Greineder'a testimony was concocted to
buttress testimony provided by Stuart James.' Those
suggestions were constitutionally impermissible. The
repeated and intentional misconduct here amounted to a
concerted assault on the defendant's credibility, a key
issue in the case. No curative instructions were ever
given, and reversal is required.
IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING IRRELEVANT AND
HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE ABOUT GREINEDER' S
EXTRAMARITAL SEXUAL ACTIVITIES.
A. Statement of Relevant Facta.
The prosecutor had absolutely no good faith basis to
believe that Greineder had spoken to James over the weekend prior to
hi8 testimony, yet he asked questiona regarding auch an imagined
conversation and argued in closing that the nonexistent conversation
took place. a, -, Commonwealth v. Fordham, 417 Mass. 10, 20
(1994) (error €or prosecutor "to communicate impressions by innuendo
through questions which are answered in the negative ... when the
questioner has no evidence to support the innuendo").
19