SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1. The sex evidence was inadmissible. . 2. The Commonwealth misused the sex evidence during closing argument. . 3. conclusion. . . . . + . . . . . . . V. THE MOTION JUDGE ERRED IN DENYING GREINEDER'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED UPON THE KECANTATLON OF DEBORAH REBEIRO. . . . I . . . A. Statement of Relevant Facts. . . . . . . E. Summary of Applicable Law. . . . . + . . 1. Recantation by prosecution witness as grounds for new trial. . . . . 2. Recantations in other jurisdictions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Constitutional right to disclosure of exculpatory information. . . . . 4. Constitutional right to fair trial based on reliable evidence. . . . . 5. Standard of review. . . . . . . . . C. Application of Law to Facts. . . . . . . 1. Kebeiro's trial testimony was false, and her recantation was credible. . 2. Rebeiro's erroneous trial testimony seriously prejudiced the defense. 3. Greineder is entitled to relief. a. Greineder is entitled to relief under the Larrison standard. . b. Greineder i s entitled to relief under federal constitutional law. . . . . . . , . . . . . . c. Greineder is entitled to relief under Gallarelli. . . . . . . . iii 22 24 25 26 26 26 26 26 27 29 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 34
VI. VII. d. Greineder is entitled to relief under the newly-discovered evidence standard. . . . . . THE MOTION JUDGE ERRED IN DENYTNG GREINEDER'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED UPON THE DELIBERATING JURY'S EXPOSURE TO EXTRANEOUS INFORMATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Statement of Relevant Facts. . . . . . . B. Summary of Applicable Law. . . . . . . . 1. Jury experiment as extraneous information. . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Prejudice . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Application of Law to Facts. . . . . . . 1. The banana experiment exposed the jury to extraneous information. . . 2. The Commonwealth did not prove the absence of prejudice. . . . . . . . GREINEDER'S TRIAL COUNSEL WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO EXCLUDE OR CHALLENGE SCIENTIFICXLLY UNRELIABLE DNA RESULTS. . . . A. Statement of Relevant Facts. . . . . . . B. Summary of Applicable Law. . . . . . . . 1. Exclusion of unreliable scientific evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Ineffective assistance of counsel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Application of Law to Facts. . . . . . . 1. Defense counsel blundered in failing to move to exclude the Commonwealth's scientifically unreliable DNA results. . . . . . . 2. Defense counsel blundered in failing to challenge the DNA evidence at trial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv 34 35 35 36 36 38 39 39 40 43 43 44 44 45 47 47 54
Page 1 and 2: NORFOLK. ss. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSAC
Page 3: 3. Greineder's direct testimony. .
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 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
show all

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?