SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases
and violated Greineder's right to a fair trial. V. THE MOTION JUDGE ERRED IN DENYINU GREINEDER'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASZD UPON THE RECANTATION OF DEBORAW REBEIRO. A. Statement of Relevant Facts, The facts relevant to this claim are set forth at pp, 2-11 of Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum of Law Resrsectinq Recanted Expert Testimony in Support of Amended Motion for New Trial (A. 892-901). Judge Chernoff addressed this claim at pp. 60-68 of his Rulinq. (A. 971- 979). B. Summary of Applicable Law. 1. Recantation by prosecution witness as grounds for new trial. Recantation of trial testimony by a prosecution witness may warrant: the granting of a new trial. See, e.q., Commonwealth v. Rutledse, 356 Mass. 499 (1969). A recantation merits "serious consideration from the motion judge." Commonwealth v. Raymond, 424 Mass. 382, 397 (1997). This Court's decisions dealing with recantations typically cite the prejudice standard governing new trial motions based on newly-discovered evidence. &e, e.4.. z.; Commonwealth v. Grace, 397 Mass. 303, 306 (1986). 2. Recantations in other jurisdictions. A recantation of trial testimony may cast serioua doubt on the justice of a conviction. Martin v. United 26
States, 17 F.2d 973, 976 (5th Cir. 1927). Many jurisdictions have crafted standards specifically for evaluating new trial motiona based on them. The best known of these, the so-called Larrison test, puts its primary focus on determining whether the testimony given at trial was false. a Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 8 2, 87-88 (7th Cir. 1 928). Most recantations cannot clear this hurdle, but in the rare case where the recantation i s deemed credible (and the testimony at trial thereby deemed false) , the prejudice requirement for granting relief is relaxed so that a movant need only show that "the jury might have reached a different conclusion" in order to obtain relief. United States v. Willis, 257 F.3d 636, 647 (6th Cir. 2001) (emohasis W) .33 3. Conatitutional right to disclosure of exculpatory information. Under Bradv v. Marvland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny, a defendant is denied due process when the prosecution fails to disclose material, exculpatory information prior to trial. Commonwealth v. Healv, l3 For other jurisdictions adopting some variant of the Larriaon teat. s, u.. United States v. Lofton, 233 F.3d 313, 318 (qth Cir. 2000) : United States v. MeYexs, 484 F.2d 113, 116 (ja Cir. 1973); HooPer v. state. 680 N.W.28 89, 94 (Minn. 2004); State v. w, 700 A.2d 161, 165 (Del. super. 1996); State v. Britt, 360 S.E.2d 660. 664-665 (N.C. 1987); State v. Scrosains, 110 ID 380, 384-385 (1985) ; Marshall v. State, 305 N.W.2d 838 (S.D. 1981) ; Y. Maeole, 617 P.Zd 820, 824 (Hawaii 1980). 27
- 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 and 40: Prior to trial, the Commonwealth ma
- Page 41: gets to that point [i.e., to commit
- 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
and violated Greineder's right to a fair trial.<br />
V. THE MOTION JUDGE ERRED IN DENYINU GREINEDER'S<br />
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASZD UPON THE RECANTATION OF<br />
DEBORAW REBEIRO.<br />
A. Statement of Relevant Facts,<br />
The facts relevant to this claim are set forth at<br />
pp, 2-11 of Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum of Law<br />
Resrsectinq Recanted Expert Testimony in Support of<br />
Amended Motion for New Trial (A. 892-901). Judge Chernoff<br />
addressed this claim at pp. 60-68 of his Rulinq. (A. 971-<br />
979).<br />
B. Summary of Applicable Law.<br />
1. Recantation by prosecution witness as<br />
grounds for new trial.<br />
Recantation of trial testimony by a prosecution<br />
witness may warrant: the granting of a new trial. See,<br />
e.q., Commonwealth v. Rutledse, 356 <strong>Mass</strong>. 499 (1969). A<br />
recantation merits "serious consideration from the motion<br />
judge." Commonwealth v. Raymond, 424 <strong>Mass</strong>. 382, 397<br />
(1997). This Court's decisions dealing with recantations<br />
typically cite the prejudice standard governing new trial<br />
motions based on newly-discovered evidence. &e, e.4..<br />
z.; Commonwealth v. Grace, 397 <strong>Mass</strong>. 303, 306 (1986).<br />
2. Recantations in other jurisdictions.<br />
A recantation of trial testimony may cast serioua<br />
doubt on the justice of a conviction. Martin v. United<br />
26
Change language