SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases

to retain a statistical expert was not manifestly
unreasonable "given that the DNA results were only one of
numeroua pieces of incriminating evidence in the case
against the defendant." 8. 968. That i s hardly a valid
excuse €or failing to challenge the most incriminating
evidence in the case. Murphy's negligence was a clear
abdication of his responsibilities to his client.
3. Greineder wa8 prejudiced by defense
counsel's blundera.
The admission of Cellmark's DNA test results at
trial contributed significantly to Greineder's
conviction. The Commonwealth's circumstantial case
depended largely upon forensic evidence, particularly
DNA. Creineder is entitled to relief i f a pretrial motion
to exclude at least a substantial portion of those
results would have been meritorious. Be is also entitled
to relief if Murphy's failure to challenge the DNA test
results at trial deprived him of a substantial defense.
Assessing the appropriate outcome of a Lanisan
motion at this juncture requires the Court to consider
and weigh the affidavits filed by Dr. Eisenberg and Dr.
Bcenner on one hand and those filed by Dz. Cotton and Ms.
Sgueglia on the other. Since the motion judge refused to
hear live expert testimony, this Court is in as good a
position as the motion judge to make that assessment. Dr.
Eisenberg's devastating critique of Cellmark's work
56