SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases
Greineder based solely on peaks above 100 RFUs. 'Tr. (9/13/06) /79-80. According to Dr. Eisenberg, Murphy is wrong. Virtually all. of the peaks relied upon by Cellmark to associate Dirk Greineder with the DNA recovered from the key three pieces of evidence were less than 100 RFUs. E. 685-686. With respect to the right-hand work glove specifically mentioned by Murphy, Dr. Eisenberg reviewed Cellmark's results locus-by-locus, concluding that "the only scientifically justifiable conclusion that can be reported is that Mabel Greineder must not be excluded as a potential contributor.. .'I and that the results over 100 RFUs do not implicate Dirk Greineder at all.. _A. 686-689. Murphy's third excuse was that such a motion would give the Commonwealth and its witnesses a helpful preview of the defense Murphy was planning to spring at trial. Yet, he failed to challenge the scientific reliability of Cellmark's testing before the jury. In cross-examining Dr. Cotton, Murphy did not ask her about Cellmark's lack .of validation studies for calling allelic peaks and DNA mixtures at less than 100 RFUs, its lack of specific criteria for lowering the RFU threshold from 100 to 40, its lack of substrate controls, or its flawed statistical analysis. Accordingly, filing a Lanisan motion challenging the admissibility of Cellmark's DNA test results would not have revealed Murphy' 6 trial strategy. 50
In any event, if filing such a motion would have led to the exclusion of Cellmark's test results, any clues about how defense counsel was planning to combat those results at trial would be rendered academic. Fourth, Murphytestified that a successful motion to exclude Cellmark's allelic calls under 100 RFUs would have undermined his strategy of suggesting that a third person was present at the scene of Ms. Greineder's death. Indeed, Murphy opined, the exclusion of such allelic calls would have "largely eliminated the stranger DNA argument. . , ." E. (9/13/06) /79. There are several critical flaws in Murphy's analysis. As Dr. Eisenberg pointed out, the defense failed at trial to identify a significant number of "stranger alleles" on any of the three key items of evidence. Only one such allele under 100 RFUs was identified on each item. A. 690. Moreover, as Murphy conceded, z. (9/13/06)/87, the defense could have presented its "stranger allele" argument based entirely upon peaka found on Ms. Greineder' s blue gloves, all in excess of 100 RFUs. On any rational. assessment of the case, Murphy's planned "stranger allele" defense, relying upon a smattering of alleles to suggest that a third person may have been present at the scene, paled in comparison to highly-incriminating evidence linking Greineder's DNA to 51
- 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: DNA test results withstands scrutin
- 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
In any event, if filing such a motion would have led to<br />
the exclusion of Cellmark's test results, any clues about<br />
how defense counsel was planning to combat those results<br />
at trial would be rendered academic.<br />
Fourth, Murphytestified that a successful motion to<br />
exclude Cellmark's allelic calls under 100 RFUs would<br />
have undermined his strategy of suggesting that a third<br />
person was present at the scene of Ms. Greineder's death.<br />
Indeed, Murphy opined, the exclusion of such allelic<br />
calls would have "largely eliminated the stranger DNA<br />
argument. . , ." E. (9/13/06) /79. There are several<br />
critical flaws in Murphy's analysis. As Dr. Eisenberg<br />
pointed out, the defense failed at trial to identify a<br />
significant number of "stranger alleles" on any of the<br />
three key items of evidence. Only one such allele under<br />
100 RFUs was identified on each item. A. 690. Moreover,<br />
as Murphy conceded, z. (9/13/06)/87, the defense could<br />
have presented its "stranger allele" argument based<br />
entirely upon peaka found on Ms. Greineder' s blue gloves,<br />
all in excess of 100 RFUs.<br />
On any rational. assessment of the case, Murphy's<br />
planned "stranger allele" defense, relying upon a<br />
smattering of alleles to suggest that a third person may<br />
have been present at the scene, paled in comparison to<br />
highly-incriminating evidence linking Greineder's DNA to<br />
51
Change language