SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases
iased and scientifically invalid methodology. The specific facts underlying this claim, including evidence presented at the post-trial evidentiary hearing and in a number of post-trial affidavits, are set forth at pp. 16-41 of the Memorandum of Law in Sumort of Defendant’s Motion for New Trial (A. 144-168)and at pp. 2-8 of Defendant’s Post-Hearins Memorandum of Law ResDectins Ineffective Assistance Provided bv Trial Counsel in Failins to Challenqe Commonwealth‘s DNA and Footprint Evidence (8. 852-858). B. Sununary of Applicable Law. 1. Exclusion of unreliable scientific evidence. Under Commonwealth v. Laniqan and its progeny, the trial judge serves as a “gatekeeper“ in making a “preliminary assessment” of whether proffered scientific evidence is sufficiently reliable to be admitted at trial. The gatekeeper role encompasses, not only the underlying scientific principles and methodology, but also “whether the testing was properly performed. ” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 445 Mass. 626, 647-648 (2005). Novel applications of an otherwise reliable technique “must be independently tested against the Laniaan-Daubert standard.” a. at 655. Scientifically unreliable evidence must be excluded “because evidence of this character has too great a potential. for affecting a jury‘s judgment.“ 44
Commonwealth v. Curnin, 409 Mass. 218, 222 n.7 (1991). The admission of unreliable evidence may violate a defendant's constitutional right to due proceas under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and Article XII. a, e.q., Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 38, 112 (1977); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 420 Mass. 458, 461-463 (1995). 2. Ineffective aaaiBtance of Every criminal defendant is guasanteed effective assistance of counsel by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and Article XII. Stricklandv. Washinston, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) ; Commonwealth v. Martinez, 425 Mass. 382, 387 (1997) I Both the federal and state courts have delineated a two-pronged test for determining whether a constitutional violation of this right: has occurred. The first prong is virtually identical - whether counsel's performance was seriously deficient, measured against an objective standard of reasonableness. Wiaqins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521 (2003); -, 366 Mass. 89, 96-99 (1974). The prejudice prong has been enunciated slightly differently by the federal and Massachusetts state courts. Under federal law, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel's 22 This summary of relevant law applies to all of Greineder's ineffective assistance claims. 45
- 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: moments" of insight, which "helped"
- 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
iased and scientifically invalid methodology.<br />
The specific facts underlying this claim, including<br />
evidence presented at the post-trial evidentiary hearing<br />
and in a number of post-trial affidavits, are set forth<br />
at pp. 16-41 of the Memorandum of Law in Sumort of<br />
Defendant’s Motion for New Trial (A. 144-168)and at pp.<br />
2-8 of Defendant’s Post-Hearins Memorandum of Law<br />
ResDectins Ineffective Assistance Provided bv Trial<br />
Counsel in Failins to Challenqe Commonwealth‘s DNA and<br />
Footprint Evidence (8. 852-858).<br />
B. Sununary of Applicable Law.<br />
1. Exclusion of unreliable scientific<br />
evidence.<br />
Under Commonwealth v. Laniqan and its progeny, the<br />
trial judge serves as a “gatekeeper“ in making a<br />
“preliminary assessment” of whether proffered scientific<br />
evidence is sufficiently reliable to be admitted at<br />
trial. The gatekeeper role encompasses, not only the<br />
underlying scientific principles and methodology, but<br />
also “whether the testing was properly performed. ”<br />
Commonwealth v. Patterson, 445 <strong>Mass</strong>. 626, 647-648 (2005).<br />
Novel applications of an otherwise reliable technique<br />
“must be independently tested against the Laniaan-Daubert<br />
standard.” a. at 655. Scientifically unreliable evidence<br />
must be excluded “because evidence of this character has<br />
too great a potential. for affecting a jury‘s judgment.“<br />
44
Change language