SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases

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