SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases
suppressed includes "not only the physical evidence discovered but also . . , testimony about its discovery"). The motion judge's position effectively eviscerates the exclusionary rule. 3. Counsel's failure to move to suppress was prejudicial. There is a reasonable likelihood that the verdict would have been different if the nails receipt had been suppressed. The receipt played an important part in the Commonwealth's circumstantial case, seeking to tie Greineder to a hammer which may have been used in the murder. While there was certainly other evidence presented at trial, none of it was overwhelming, and there is no way to determine what tipped the balance towards a guilty verdict IX. DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO FILE A MERITORIOUS MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE FRUITS OF A GEARCH OF GREINEDER'S TOYOTA AVALON. A. Statement of Relevant Facts. The facts relevant to this claim are set forth at pp. 85-88 of the Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion for New Trial, A. 212-215, and pp. 16- 21 of Defendant'a Post-Hearinq Memorandum of Law Resaectins Ineffective Assistance pf Counsel Claims Unrelated to Expert Testimony. A. 806-811. B. Summary of Applicable Law. 1. Scope of a residential search warrant. 60
A search warrant for a residence covers vehicles found within the curtilage of the residence but not those outside. Commonwealth v. Mcdarthv, 428 Mass. 871, 873 (1999). In -, 392 Mass. 45, 48 (19841, this Court held that a private driveway adjacent to a home was not within the curtilage. Therefore, a vehicle parked in the driveway was outside the curtilage. 2, Limited exception to warrant requirement for automobile searches. Under both the Fourth Amendment and Article XIV, police may not search an automobile without a warrant unless they can make a showing of probable cause and exigent circumstances. The Commonwealth must show that there is probable cause that the automobile contains contraband or evidence of a crime. &g Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925); Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 376 Mass. 349, 354 (1978). The exigent circumstances requirement is met only when it is "impracticable" for a warrant to be obtained. Commonwealth v. Alvarado, 420 Mass. 542, 554 (1995). C. Application of Law to Facts. 1. The search of the Toyota Avalon was unlawful. Greineder's car was parked in his driveway, which was not within the curtilage of the house. As in Simmons, the driveway was openly visible from the public road and 61
- 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 and 74: emains unrebutted, and Dr. Brenner'
- Page 75: precisely what the Constitution pro
- Page 79 and 80: circumatances, the court could prop
- Page 81: process can arise from a combinatio
suppressed includes "not only the physical evidence<br />
discovered but also . . , testimony about its discovery").<br />
The motion judge's position effectively eviscerates the<br />
exclusionary rule.<br />
3. Counsel's failure to move to suppress was<br />
prejudicial.<br />
There is a reasonable likelihood that the verdict<br />
would have been different if the nails receipt had been<br />
suppressed. The receipt played an important part in the<br />
Commonwealth's circumstantial case, seeking to tie<br />
Greineder to a hammer which may have been used in the<br />
murder. While there was certainly other evidence<br />
presented at trial, none of it was overwhelming, and<br />
there is no way to determine what tipped the balance<br />
towards a guilty verdict<br />
IX. DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO FILE<br />
A MERITORIOUS MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE FRUITS OF A<br />
GEARCH OF GREINEDER'S TOYOTA AVALON.<br />
A. Statement of Relevant Facts.<br />
The facts relevant to this claim are set forth<br />
at pp. 85-88 of the Memorandum of Law in Support of<br />
Defendant's Motion for New Trial, A. 212-215, and pp. 16-<br />
21 of Defendant'a Post-Hearinq Memorandum of Law<br />
Resaectins Ineffective Assistance pf Counsel Claims<br />
Unrelated to Expert Testimony. A. 806-811.<br />
B. Summary of Applicable Law.<br />
1. Scope of a residential search warrant.<br />
60
Change language