20.07.2013 Views

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

emains unrebutted, and Dr. Brenner's critique of<br />

Cellmark's statistical analysis hasn't been addressed at<br />

all. Accordingly, this Court should conclude that a<br />

Lanisan motion to exclude all of Cellmark's inculpatory<br />

DNA test results (or at least those relying on allelic<br />

calls based on peaks under 100 RFUs) would properly have<br />

been allowed, as would a motion to exclude Cellmark's<br />

statistical analysis of those results.<br />

This Court should also conclude that Greineder was<br />

prejudiced by Murphy' a failure to challenge Cellmark's<br />

test results before the jury. Cellmark's testing was<br />

highly vulnerable to attack, but auch an attack never<br />

took place. Clearly, the defendant wa6 "likely deprived<br />

... of an otherwise available, substantial ground of<br />

defense." Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 <strong>Mass</strong>. at 96,<br />

Surely, "better work might have accomplished something<br />

material for the defense." Commonwealth v. Satterfield,<br />

373 <strong>Mass</strong>. at 115. Greineder's constitutional right to<br />

effective assistance of counsel was violated, and he is<br />

entitled to relief.<br />

VIII. DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO<br />

FILE A MERITORIOUS MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE<br />

NAILS RECEIPT.<br />

A. Statement of Relevant Facta.<br />

The facts relevant to this claim are set forth at<br />

pp. 77-80 of the Memorandum of Law in Support of<br />

57

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!