SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases
uler was denied. In conducting the experiment, the jury filled in a critical gap in the Comrnonwealth'a case. As the motion judge states, the jury effectively created its own "transfer exemplars." 8. 719. The jury clearly went beyond the evidence adduced in the courtroom in resolving a critical disputed factual issue. 2. The Commonwealth did not prove the absence of prejudice. The Commonwealth did not meet ita busden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a hypothetical average jury would be unaffected by exposure to this extraneous information. Defense counsel and the defense expert had stressed the absence of quantitative proof or overlays linking the work gloves to Greineder's jacket. Denied access to a ruler with which to make its own quantitative assessment, the jury resorted to fabricating the equivalent of an overlay using a banana and compared its creation to the streak on the jacket. Armed with the results of its comparison, an average jury would be more likely to accept the Commonwealth's contention that the murderer's gloves had created the streak on Greineder's jacket, pointing to him as the perpetrator. The precise gap which the defense emphaaized in the Commonwealth's proof at trial was neatly filled in by the jury itself! The conclusion that an average jury would likely have been affected by this experiment is reinforced by 40
consideration of the factors outlined in Fidler and its progeny. There was no immediate reprimand from another juror after the extraneous material was presented. On the contrary, many, if not all, of the jurors, looked at the mark on the banana, noted its similarity to the pattern on the gloves, and talked about it. Moreover, there was far from overwhelming evidence of guilt. There were no eyewitnesses to the crime nor inculpatory admissions. The jury deliberated for five days before reaching a verdict. There i s simply no way of knowing what led each of the 12 jurors to vote to convict. The Commonwealth cannot meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a hypothetical average jury would not have been affected by the introduction of directly inculpatory, extraneous information which filled an important gap in the Commonwealth's case and which Greineder had no opportunity to rebut ox challenge. The ruling of the motion judge to the contrary should be rejected.19 The motion judge went beyond the hypothetical jury test and sought: to make findings regarding the actual impact of the banana experiment on the jury. Both that '' The motion judge was correct in observing that "although tying the gloves to Greineder was a significant part of the government's case, it was not so critical that the jury could not have convicted the defendant without i.t." &. 784. That, however, is not the applicable legal test! 41
- 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 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: jury, if “a judge learns that a j
- 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
consideration of the factors outlined in Fidler and its<br />
progeny. There was no immediate reprimand from another<br />
juror after the extraneous material was presented. On the<br />
contrary, many, if not all, of the jurors, looked at the<br />
mark on the banana, noted its similarity to the pattern<br />
on the gloves, and talked about it.<br />
Moreover, there was far from overwhelming evidence<br />
of guilt. There were no eyewitnesses to the crime nor<br />
inculpatory admissions. The jury deliberated for five<br />
days before reaching a verdict. There i s simply no way of<br />
knowing what led each of the 12 jurors to vote to<br />
convict. The Commonwealth cannot meet its burden of<br />
proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a hypothetical<br />
average jury would not have been affected by the<br />
introduction of directly inculpatory, extraneous<br />
information which filled an important gap in the<br />
Commonwealth's case and which Greineder had no<br />
opportunity to rebut ox challenge. The ruling of the<br />
motion judge to the contrary should be rejected.19<br />
The motion judge went beyond the hypothetical jury<br />
test and sought: to make findings regarding the actual<br />
impact of the banana experiment on the jury. Both that<br />
'' The motion judge was correct in observing that "although<br />
tying the gloves to Greineder was a significant part of the<br />
government's case, it was not so critical that the jury could not<br />
have convicted the defendant without i.t." &. 784. That, however, is<br />
not the applicable legal test!<br />
41
Change language