SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases
The facts respecting the Commonwealth's admission and exploitation of a plethora of evidence respecting Greineder's extramarital sexual activities axe detailed at pp. 52-62 of the Memorandum of Law in SUppOrt of Defendant's Motion for New Trial (A. 179-189)and at pp. 28-40 of Defendant's Post-Hearinq Memorandum of Law Respectinq Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims Unrelated to Expert Testimony. (A. 818-830) B. Summary of Applicable Law. 1. Admissibility of prior bad acts. "Prior bad acts are not admissible to show that the defendant has a criminal propensity or is of bad character. I' Commonwealth v. Robertson, 408 Mass. 747. 750 (1990). Such evidence is admissible when it "pertains to the defendant's knowledge, intent, motive, method, identity or some other relevant issue at trial." Commonwealth v. Leonard, 428 Mass. 782, 786 (1999). Relevance determinations are made by the trial judge, who must also decide "whether the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effect." a. Evidence that the defendant used an alias may constitute a "gratuitous, improper, and prejudicial attack on the defendant's character and credibility." Commonwealth v. Martin, 442 Mass. 1002, 1003 (2004). Mistaken evidentiary rulings may violate a defendant s right to due process if 20
they render the trial fundamentally unfair. Dowlina v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 352 (1990) I 2. Extramarital. sexual activity i6 relevant to motive to commit murder only when combined with overt evidence of hostility. This Court has held that ll[e]vidence of a hostile relationship between a defendant and his spouse may be admitted as relevant to the defendant’s motive to kill the victim spouse. ‘‘ Commonwealth v. Rosenthal, 432 Maas. 124, 127 (2000). However, sexual infidelity alone has never been equated with a “hostile relationship. ‘I Tn every case where the Court has treated prior bad acts of extramarital sexual activity as relevant evidence of hostility, the defendant also engaged in physical abuse or expressed disdain towards the victim.’ As other jurisdictions have recognized, evidence of extramarital sexual relationships is not, without more, probative of a motive to commit uxoricide.l’ 9 See, m, Commonwealth v. DeMarCO, 444 Mass. 678, 683 (2005); Commonwealth v. Mas raw, 426 Mass. 589, 596 n.9 (1998); Commonwealth v. Bonomi, 335 MaSS. 327, 340 (1957); Commonwealth v. Howard, 205 Mass. 128, 133 (1310). 10 ~n casterline v. Scats, 736 S.W.2d 207, 211-212 (TeX. Ct. App. 1987), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held: Evidence of a troubled marriage alone does not establish a motive to kill. Spouses in a troubled marriage may be neither jealous nor emotional, and even if they are, that jealousy or emotion need not necessarily create a homicidal motive. It would be highly speculative to infer that marital infidelity. standing alone. created a homicidal motive. See Peoule v. Hendricks, 137 Ill. 31, 54-55, 560 N.E.2d 661 (1990). - 21
- 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 and 18: STATEMENT OF THE CASE Dirk K. Grein
- Page 19 and 20: First of all, we are in Room 8. The
- 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: that Greineder had never mentioned
- 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
- Page 69 and 70: subject to exclusion on that ground
- Page 71 and 72: esults were effectively unchallenge
- Page 73 and 74: emains unrebutted, and Dr. Brenner'
- Page 75 and 76: precisely what the Constitution pro
- Page 77 and 78: A search warrant for a residence co
- Page 79 and 80: circumatances, the court could prop
- Page 81: process can arise from a combinatio
The facts respecting the Commonwealth's admission<br />
and exploitation of a plethora of evidence respecting<br />
Greineder's extramarital sexual activities axe detailed<br />
at pp. 52-62 of the Memorandum of Law in SUppOrt of<br />
Defendant's Motion for New Trial (A. 179-189)and at pp.<br />
28-40 of Defendant's Post-Hearinq Memorandum of Law<br />
Respectinq Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims<br />
Unrelated to Expert Testimony. (A. 818-830)<br />
B. Summary of Applicable Law.<br />
1. Admissibility of prior bad acts.<br />
"Prior bad acts are not admissible to show that the<br />
defendant has a criminal propensity or is of bad<br />
character. I' Commonwealth v. Robertson, 408 <strong>Mass</strong>. 747. 750<br />
(1990). Such evidence is admissible when it "pertains to<br />
the defendant's knowledge, intent, motive, method,<br />
identity or some other relevant issue at trial."<br />
Commonwealth v. Leonard, 428 <strong>Mass</strong>. 782, 786 (1999).<br />
Relevance determinations are made by the trial judge, who<br />
must also decide "whether the probative value of the<br />
evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effect." a.<br />
Evidence that the defendant used an alias may constitute<br />
a "gratuitous, improper, and prejudicial attack on the<br />
defendant's character and credibility." Commonwealth v.<br />
Martin, 442 <strong>Mass</strong>. 1002, 1003 (2004). Mistaken evidentiary<br />
rulings may violate a defendant s right to due process if<br />
20
Change language