SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases

would have been different had the evidence regarding the
towel been suppressed. The Commonwealth's case was based
entirely on circumstantial evidence, and Greineder's
testimony about the towel was the linchpin of the DNA
transfer theory presented by the defense at trial.
Testimony by Detective McDermott that the towel produced
by Greineder was not the one observed in Greineder's
vehicle during the search devastated Greineder's
credibility by making him appear dishonest. Further, it
completely undermined the defense's DNA transfer theory,
making it look more like a concoction supported by
fabricated evidence than a reasonable explanation of the
otherwise-damning DNA test results. Greineder suffered
substantial prejudice and i s entitled to relief.
X. THE CUMULATIVE ERRORS JUSTIFY REVERSAL OF
GREINEDER'S CONVICTION.
A. Summary of Applicable Law.
Under M.G.L.c. 278, 533E, this Court must consider
"whether there was an error in the course of the trial
(by defense counsel, the prosecutor, or the judge) 'I that
creates a "substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of
justice." Commonwealth v. Wrisht, 411 Maso. 678, 681
(1992). In examining the record, the Court may take into
account the combined prejudicial effects of individual
errors. a, u, Commonwealth v. Baker, 440 Mass. at
519. Similarly, a violation of the federal right to due
64