Commonwealth v. Greineder
458 Mass. 207
| Mass. | 2010Background
- The defendant murdered his wife by a large horizontal stab wound to the neck in a Norfolk County park area on Oct. 31, 1999.
- DNA and physical evidence linked gloves, a hammer, a knife, and other items to the scene and to the defendant, with victim DNA on several items.
- The defense challenged DNA testing procedures, raised transfer theories, and presented experts questioning Cellmark's methods and thresholds.
- A contentious jury voir dire occurred with disputed public access to Room 8 during individual voir dire, raising public-trial concerns under the Sixth and First Amendments.
- The Commonwealth introduced evidence of the defendant’s extramarital sexual activity as possible motive; the defense argued it was prejudicial and improper to admit such acts.
- The defendant sought a new trial on multiple grounds including recantation by a Commonwealth witness, jury-deliberation exposure to extraneous information, and various suppression issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public trial during voir dire | Public access was maintained; any closure was nonconstitutional or not proven. | Voir dire in Room 8 was effectively closed to the public and media, violating public-trial rights. | Public and Britt attended portions; no constitutional closure shown |
| Confrontation and DNA testimony | Dr. Cotton's opinion relying on Magee's data is admissible under expert-to-expert bases. | Details of Magee's test results are hearsay and violate confrontation; Crawford applies to testimonial evidence. | Confrontation violated; Magee data admissible indirectly via Dr. Cotton's opinion; harmless under context |
| Admission of extramarital evidence as motive | Extramarital activity is probative of motive and time-linked to the crime. | Such evidence is prejudicial and speculative as sole motive. | Admissible; probative and contextually linked to motive |
| Cross-examination and silence/closing | Cross-exam questions about prior statements and silence are proper to test inconsistencies. | Cross-examination or closing about silence exploited defendant's post-Miranda silence improperly. | Questions and closing argument grounded in record; not improper |
| Ineffective assistance regarding DNA and related motions | Counsel strategically weighed Lanigan options and transfer theories; decisions were reasonable. | Counsel should have pursued pretrial Lanigan motion and hired additional experts. | Counsel's strategy not manifestly unreasonable; no substantial likelihood of miscarriage |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cohen (No. 1), 456 Mass. 94 (Mass. 2010) (public access to voir dire; room 8 procedures discussed)
- Commonwealth v. Tucceri, 412 Mass. 401 (Mass. 1992) (standard for reviewing new trial arguments post-trial)
- Commonwealth v. Grace, 397 Mass. 303 (Mass. 1986) (special deference to trial judge rulings on new trials)
- Commonwealth v. Nardi, 452 Mass. 379 (Mass. 2008) (Confrontation and expert testimony; context for DNA evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Gaynor, 443 Mass. 245 (Mass. 2005) (DNA thresholds; weight versus admissibility in forensic evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Mendes, 441 Mass. 459 (Mass. 2004) (motive evidence and its probative value)