SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases
then was hammered home in closing argument. It was patently improper, but it worked! In ruling on Greineder's motion limine, the trial court allowed the Commonwealth to present evidence about his sexual activities during the seven days prior to Ms. Greineder's death. This putative compromise was wholly ineffectual. The practical result of the ruling was to make it appear that in the week prior to his wife's murder, Greineder had suddenly engaged in a wild burst of extramarital sexual activity. The jury would undoubtedly have been tempted to infer some connection between this unprecedented behavior and the murder. To negate that unfair and erroneous inference, Greineder was forced to introduce evidence of a longer history of extramarital sexual activity himself. In the end, the court's ruling did nothing to protect Greineder from an unfair trial. 2. The Comonwezllth misuaed the sex evidence during closing argument. Having hoodwinked the court into believing the sex evidence was tied to motive, the Commonwealth abandoned that bogus theory entirely in closing argument. The prosecutor's inability to connect the sexual evidence in any way to Ms. Greineder's murder did not deter him from bringing up the sordid details one more time, improperly connecting Greineder's sexual activities with the murder: I wish I could tell you exactly how a person 24
gets to that point [i.e., to commit murder1 in their own life. I can't. I can't tell you how a person gets to the point where he's doing many things that this Defendant was doing. E. 25/95.'' To make matters worse, the prosecutor referred to several "facts" which were unsupported by the evidence. Re told the jury that Greineder had described his wife as "old and soft," and that Greineder had been seeking out a woman named "Elizabeth" with whom he had "a long term standing relationship." B. 25/61. Neither of these "facts1' was in evidence ." The unfair prejudice resulting from these fabrications was substantial. 3. Conclusion. Evidence regarding Greineder's extramarital sexual activities had no proper place at trial. The Commonwealth broke its promise to use such evidence solely to establish Greineder's motive to murder his wife. Nevertheless, the evidence came in, through witness after witness, until the Commonwealth had achieved its real objective of destroying the defendant's character. The erroneous admission and misuse of this toxic bad acts evidence contributed significantly to the jury's verdict li The phrase "many things that this Defendant was doing" cannot have referred to anything but the extramarital sexual activities highlighted so many times during trial. 12 On cross-examination, Greineder speciPically denied that he had made either statement. Tr. 20/169-170. There was no evidence to the contrary presented at trial. 25
- 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 and 36: that Greineder had never mentioned
- Page 37 and 38: they render the trial fundamentally
- Page 39: Prior to trial, the Commonwealth ma
- 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
then was hammered home in closing argument. It was<br />
patently improper, but it worked!<br />
In ruling on Greineder's motion limine, the trial<br />
court allowed the Commonwealth to present evidence about<br />
his sexual activities during the seven days prior to Ms.<br />
Greineder's death. This putative compromise was wholly<br />
ineffectual. The practical result of the ruling was to<br />
make it appear that in the week prior to his wife's<br />
murder, Greineder had suddenly engaged in a wild burst of<br />
extramarital sexual activity. The jury would undoubtedly<br />
have been tempted to infer some connection between this<br />
unprecedented behavior and the murder. To negate that<br />
unfair and erroneous inference, Greineder was forced to<br />
introduce evidence of a longer history of extramarital<br />
sexual activity himself. In the end, the court's ruling<br />
did nothing to protect Greineder from an unfair trial.<br />
2. The Comonwezllth misuaed the sex evidence<br />
during closing argument.<br />
Having hoodwinked the court into believing the sex<br />
evidence was tied to motive, the Commonwealth abandoned<br />
that bogus theory entirely in closing argument. The<br />
prosecutor's inability to connect the sexual evidence in<br />
any way to Ms. Greineder's murder did not deter him from<br />
bringing up the sordid details one more time, improperly<br />
connecting Greineder's sexual activities with the murder:<br />
I wish I could tell you exactly how a person<br />
24
Change language