SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases

More documents

Recommendations

Info

were missing, that Cellmark had fiddled with the results, and that its statistical analysis was improper. He knew of no published court decision endorsing the kind of LCN work Cellmask had performed. The exhaustive analysis carried out by Drs. Eisenberg and Brenner conclusively established the scientific invalidity of Cellmark' 8 work and the unreliability of its test results. Dr. Eisenberg showed that Cellmark's interpretation of LCN DNA mixtures at an RFU peak detection threshold below 100 was unreliable, unscientific, improperly validated, and unfairly biased against Greineder. Indeed, Cellmark's approach was "the antithesis of proper scientific practice." 6. 434. The unreliability of Cellmark's test results also permeated the statistical analysis presented to the jury. As Dr . Brenner explained in his uncontroverted affidavit, Cellmark' 6 statistical analysis "violated basic scientific principles" and was "ecientifically invalid. " A. 266, 270. There was "no objective way to quantify accurately the random match probability on the right-hand work glove and other pieces of evidence tested by Cellmark. " a. None of the justifications offered by Mr. Murphy for failing to file a Lanisan motion to exclude Cellmark's 48
DNA test results withstands scrutiny.’’ First, Murphy testified that he believed that a motion to exclude Cellmark’s results as scientifically unreliable was ”unlikely to be successful .” E. (8/14/06) /131.. Yet baaed upon his o m knowledge of Cellmark’s seriously-flawed work in this case, that prediction was utterly baseless. Murphy’s experts were sharply critical of Cellmark’s work and advised him that Cellmark had engaged in improper analysis and bad science. Murphy knew that Cellmark had not validated its use of an RFU threshold of 40, which was unprecedented and unjustifiable. Under these circumstances, Murphy had ample reason to believe that a motion to exclude cellmark’s test results was meritorious and would be allowed by a fair judge. At the very least, all allelic calls by Cellmark based upon peaks below 100 RFUS were ripe for exclusion. Clearly, the filing of a Laniaan motion would not have been an exercise in futility, and Murphy’s belief to the contrary was manifestly unreasonable. Second, Murphy testified that even if he had eucceeded in excluding all allelic calls under 100 RFUs, the jury still would have heard DNA results that “conclusively linked“ the right-hand work glove to 23 Mr. Murphy’s credibility is not in dispute. This Court is in as good a position as the motion judge to assess the reasonableness of his decisions. 49
Page 1 and 2:
NORFOLK. ss. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSAC
Page 3 and 4:
3. Greineder's direct testimony. .
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 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: In evaluating a claim of ineffectiv
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?