SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases

As noted above, many jurisdictions have adopted a
legal standard for evaluating prejudice in reliable
recantation cases that is moce generous than in other
newly-discovered evidence cases. This Court should adopt
a similar test. Under Larrison, there is no doubt that
the jury might have reached a different conclusion had
Rebeiro's recantation been presented so Greineder is
clearly entitled to relief.
b. Greineder is entitled to relief
under federal constitutional law.
The significance that the recanting witness was a
government agent cannot be overstated. Under such
circumstances, this Court should apply a Bradv-type
analysis. That line of cases is specifically designed to
deal with mistakes by a member of the prosecution team
that affect the accuracy of the information presented to
the jury at trial. Here, it was the malfeasance of the
prosecution team itself that tainted the presentation of
evidence to the jury, violating the defendant's right to
a fair trial.I5 Under auch Circumstances, this Court
should apply a "reasonable probability'' test in
l5 COnSideK the following two scenarios: In the first,
Rebeiro testifies that the footprint was that of a heel, while
Lunbeknomst to the prosecutor) there is a prior affidavit authored
by Rebeiro which indicates that the print was that of a toe, a
document never turned over to the defendant in violation of w.
Xn the second, as here, the conflicting affidavit is produced after
trial. It would be truly anomalous if a defendant in the first
scenario were entitled to a new trial, while the defendant in the
second were denied any relief.
33