SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases
5. Standard of review.14 A new trial motion is general1 committed to the discretion of the trial judge. Commonwealth v. Schand, 420 Mass. 783, 787 (1995). If, however, the original trial was infectedwithprejudicial constitutional error, the judge has no discretion to deny the motion. Commonwealth v. Cowie, 404 Mass. 119, 123 (1989). In reviewing the denial of a new trial motion, an appellate court considers whether the motion judge committed a significant error of law or other abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Perkins, 450 Mass. 834, 845 (ZOOS). On appellate review, the judge's findings of fact after an evidentiary hearing will be aclcepted if supported by the record. Commonwealth v. Walker, 443 Mass. 213, 224 (2005). The reviewing court may reject findings which are clearly erroneous. Commonwealth v. Cast, 407 Mass. 891,897 (1990). Where the denial of a motion for new trial i s considered along with the direct appeal from a conviction for first degree murder, this Court must determine whether, under t4.G.L.c. 278, S33E, there is a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. Commonwealth v. Dubois, 451 Mass. 20, 30 (2008). C. Application of Law to Facts. 14 This standard of review applieEt to all of the issues raised by Greineder's motion for new trial. 30
1. Rebeiro's trial testimony was false, and her recantation was credible. There can be no doubt that Rebeiro' s recantation was honest and reliable. She would not have volunteered her affidavit, exposing herself to professional embarrassment and potentially imperiling the conviction, unless it were true. Moreover, Rebeiro's recantation is strongly corroborated by Bodziak's affidavit, the catalyst prompting Rebeiro to change her tune. In sum, this Court should credit Rebeiro' s recantation and conclude that her trial testimony that Greineder's heel mark was adjacent to a drag mark leading to Ms. Greineder's body was false. 2. Rebeiro's erroneous trial testimony seriously prejudiced the defense. The connection between Greineder' 6 alleged heel mark and the drag mark found near Ms. Greineder's body was a key part of the Commonwealth's case. The "heel mark" was discussed by the prosecutor in his opening, addressed at length by Rebeiro, and emphasized in the prosecutor's closing argument. The significance of this evidence was clear - if the jury believed Rebeiro' s uncontradicted testimony about Footprint #7. it could conclude that Greineder had dragged Ms. Greindex's body to its final resting place and thus, almost certainly, was her killer. The prosecutor also used this false testimony to undermine Greineder's credibility and suggest that he had 31
- 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 and 42: gets to that point [i.e., to commit
- Page 43 and 44: States, 17 F.2d 973, 976 (5th Cir.
- Page 45: 399 Mass. 17, 21 n.5 (1987). In Gal
- 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
5. Standard of review.14<br />
A new trial motion is general1 committed to the<br />
discretion of the trial judge. Commonwealth v. Schand,<br />
420 <strong>Mass</strong>. 783, 787 (1995). If, however, the original<br />
trial was infectedwithprejudicial constitutional error,<br />
the judge has no discretion to deny the motion.<br />
Commonwealth v. Cowie, 404 <strong>Mass</strong>. 119, 123 (1989). In<br />
reviewing the denial of a new trial motion, an appellate<br />
court considers whether the motion judge committed a<br />
significant error of law or other abuse of discretion.<br />
Commonwealth v. Perkins, 450 <strong>Mass</strong>. 834, 845 (ZOOS). On<br />
appellate review, the judge's findings of fact after an<br />
evidentiary hearing will be aclcepted if supported by the<br />
record. Commonwealth v. Walker, 443 <strong>Mass</strong>. 213, 224<br />
(2005). The reviewing court may reject findings which are<br />
clearly erroneous. Commonwealth v. Cast, 407 <strong>Mass</strong>.<br />
891,897 (1990). Where the denial of a motion for new<br />
trial i s considered along with the direct appeal from a<br />
conviction for first degree murder, this Court must<br />
determine whether, under t4.G.L.c. 278, S33E, there is a<br />
substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.<br />
Commonwealth v. Dubois, 451 <strong>Mass</strong>. 20, 30 (2008).<br />
C. Application of Law to Facts.<br />
14<br />
This standard of review applieEt to all of the issues<br />
raised by Greineder's motion for new trial.<br />
30
Change language