SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases
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