SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases

subject to exclusion on that ground as well, and Murphy's
decision to forego filing a Lanisan motion was manifestly
unreasonable.
In denying Greineder's motion for a new trial, Judge
Chernoff stated: " [TI his Court, in its discretion, would
most likely have rejected a Lanisan challenge to
Cellmark'a test results in this case, despite the serioua
issues raised by Dr. Eisenberg." 8. 965." Based on the
record before him, Judge Chernoff's conclusion was
clearly erroneous as a matter of law. If Dr. Eisenberg i s
correct in his analysis, Cellmark's work in this case was
scientifically invalid and unreliable.25 Under Lanisan
and its progeny, a motion to exclude such junk science
would properly have been allowed.2c
Judge Chernoff's conclusion that Murphy's decision
24
Judge Chernoff does not appear to question Dr.
Eisenberg's credibility or doubt his conclusions. Since Judge
Chernoff denied Greineder'a motion to call ar. Eisenbery as a
witness at the evidentiary hearing, this Court is in as good a
position as Judge Chernoff to consider the substance of Dr.
Eiaenberg's affidavies, as well as the aEfidavit of Dr, Brenner and
those proffered by the Commonwealth.
25 This Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Gaynor, 443
Mass. 245, 263-270 (2005) is not to the contrary. In Gavnor, "only
teat results based on a single source of DNA" or results yielding
"strong evidence of a primary contributor" were used. a. at 251.
Hsre, by contrast, cellmark interpreted LCN mixtures containing
extremely weak signals from a putative secondary contributor,
stretching DNA technology well beyond validated. reliable limits.
26 This Court's decision in Patterson, 445 Mass. at 655.
refusing to extend fingerprint analysis methodology to authorize the
admission of fingerprint analysis based on a composite of three
partial fingerprints, is directly on point. Here, as there, the
Commonwealth's experts extended acceptable techniques beyond the
point of demonstrated reliability.
53