SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Defendant's Motion for New Trial, _A. 204-207, and at pp. 6-10 of Defendant's Post-Hearinq Memorandum of Law Resaectins Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims Unrelated to Exnert Testimony, 8. 796-800. B. Summary of Applicable Law. Under the Fourth Amendment and Article XIV, search warrants must describe the articles to be seized with particularity. Commonwealth v. Cefalo, 381 Mass. 319 (1980); United States v. Ferreras, 192 F.3d 5, 10 (1st Cir. 1999) + "The uniformly applied rule i s that a search conducted pursuant to a warrant that fails to conform to the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment is unconstitutional." Massachusetts v. Sheuuard, 468 U.S. 981, 988 n. 5 (1984). If a warrant lacks specificity, all the fruits of the search must be suppressed. Commonwealth v, Rutkowski, 406 Mass. 673, 674-675 (1990) ," C. Application of Law to Facts. 1. The seizure of the nails receipt was unconstitutional. The search warrant was an impermissible general warrant. Through this device, the Commonwealth took a host of materials from Greineder's home, hoping that further investigation might render them useful. This is 27 A warrant that lacks a specific description of the items eo be seized may still pass muater if accompanied by an affidavit containing a specific description of those items. See Commonwealth v. Sheward, 394 Mass. 381, 390 (1985). 58
precisely what the Constitution prohibits. While a general warrant may be cured by an affidavit that provides sufficient specificity, that principle does not apply to the seizure of the nails receipt because the nails receipt was not mentioned in the affidavit. Accordingly, the nails receipt was subject to suppression as the fruit of an unlawPul general warrant.28 2. The motion judge's ruling waa erroneou8. In denying Greineder's motion for new trial, the motion judge clearly erred in opining that even if the nails receipt were suppressed, the Commonwealth would have been able to present testimony by the seizing officers as to its contents. The essence of the exclusionary rule is that neither the object of an illegal seizure, nor the fruits thereof, may be introduced at trial against a defendant. Manw v. -, 367 U.S. 643, 654-656 (1961); Commonwealth v. Blood, 400 Mass. 61, 77 (1987); 6 W.R. LaFave, Search and Seizure, 511.4, at 255 n.1 (4th ed. 2004) (evidence to be 18 It is not entirely clear whether the trial court ruled that the nails receipt waB admiasible OK failed to rule on the question. FOT present purposea. it does not matter. Either the trial court did not rule on the issue, in which case defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to present a suppression argument prior to admission of the nails receipt. or it did rule on the issue, in which case that ruling was reversible error. Either way, Greineder is entitled to relief from a conviction based in part upon an unconstitutionally-seized piece of evidence. As the prosecutor argued in his closing, this was "important" evidence that provided a specific, easy-to-understand link between the defendant and the murder weapon. E. 25/89-90. 59
Page 1 and 2:
NORFOLK. ss. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSAC
Page 3 and 4:
3. Greineder's direct testimony. .
Page 5 and 6:
VI. VII. d. Greineder is entitled t
Page 7 and 8:
4 . Counsel's failure to move to su
Page 9 and 10:
Miller v. Harvey, 566 F.2d 879 (4th
Page 11 and 12:
Commonwealth v. Carter, 39 Mass. Ap
Page 13 and 14:
Commonwealth v. Martinez, 425 Mass.
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 and 66: DNA test results withstands scrutin
Page 67 and 68: In any event, if filing such a moti
Page 69 and 70: subject to exclusion on that ground
Page 71 and 72: esults were effectively unchallenge
Page 73: emains unrebutted, and Dr. Brenner'
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
show all

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?