Commonwealth v. Greineder, 464 Mass. 580

The case returned to this court after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded Greineder to consider Williams v. Illinois.
Massachusetts had previously admitted Dr. Cotton’s expert opinion linking the defendant’s DNA to the crime scene, though some data underlying that opinion was admitted in error.
Massachusetts law allows expert opinions based on independently admissible facts not in evidence, but bars direct examination from reciting hearsay basis data.
Williams analyzed the admissibility of basis evidence for an expert's independent opinion, with five justices differing on the rationale.
The court held Williams does not require changing Massachusetts’ bifurcated rule admitting opinion but excluding its hearsay basis on direct examination.
The court ultimately affirmed the conviction, finding Dr. Cotton’s opinion properly admitted and the hearsay-based testimony on the underlying data was admitted in error but not prejudicial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation rights and expert basis evidence	Greineder argues Williams undermines the basis-evidence rule harming confrontation.	Cotton argues the basis data should be admissible to explain the opinion under Williams and related precedents.	Williams does not undermine the bifurcated rule; opinion allowed, basis hearsay excluded.
Bifurcation of opinion and basis	Defense contends the two elements are inseparable in DNA analysis.	Commonwealth maintains separate admissibility for opinion with hearsay basis excluded on direct examination.	Bifurcation is valid; opinion admissible while basis evidence is excluded on direct examination.
Impact of Williams on Massachusetts evidentiary rules	Williams purportedly requires treating underlying DNA basis evidence as non-admissible.	Massachusetts rules provide greater protection and are not controlled by Williams.	Williams does not require altering Massachusetts’ evidentiary approach; rules remain protective.
Harmless error and prejudice	Admission of the hearsay basis on direct examination could prejudice the defendant.	Defense used the data in cross-examination to challenge reliability; any error was harmless.	Error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed.

Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012) (basis evidence admissible under some theories; plurality opinions differ)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011) (surrogate testimony cannot admit non-testifying analyst data)
Nardi, 452 Mass. 379 (2008) (autopsy findings and confrontation; independent basis admissible)
Barbosa, 457 Mass. 773 (2010) (DNA analysis; distinction between opinion and underlying data)
Munoz, 461 Mass. 126 (2011) (independent opinion based on non-admitted data; Bullcoming distinction)
McNickles, 434 Mass. 839 (2001) (hearsay basis of expert data on cross-examination)
Avila, 454 Mass. 744 (2009) (evidentiary rules safeguarding confrontation rights)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (confrontation principles in forensic evidence)