SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases

deliberations. Judge Chernoff is correct that " It1 he jury
could have diacounted all the footprint evidence and
still found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
killed his wife." &. 978. That, however, is not the test.
Rather, the question is whether the admission Of
critical, unrebutted expert testimony emphasized by the
prosecutor in closing argument likely affected the jury's
week-long deliberations. Under that legal standard,
Greineder is clearly entitled to relief. As another court
wrote in a similar context:
The .. . expert's testimony was damning - and
it was false.. . . [the defendant] has the right
to be tried, insofar as possible, on the basis
of true and correct evidence; to deny him this
right is to deny him a fair trial.. . . IT] o
allow a conviction to be based even in part on
such manifestly inaccurate and prejudicial
testimony ,.. would be a serious injustice.
State v. Caldwell, 322 N.W.2d 574, 586 (Minn. 1982).
VI. THE MOTION JUDGE ERRED IN DENYING GREINEDER'S
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED UPON THE DELIBERATING
JURY'S EXPOSURE TO EXTWEOUS INFORDdATION.
A. Statement of Relevant Pacts.
The specific facts relating to this claim, including
the evidence adduced at a post-trial evidentiary hearing,
are set forth at pp. 3-16 of Defendant's Post-Hearinq
Memorandum of Law Resuectinq ExDoaure of Deliberating
JUZY t o Extraneous Information. A. 738-751. Judge
Chernoff denied the portion of Greineder's motion for new
trial raising this claim by order dated May 5, 2006. A.
35