Commonwealth v. Greineder

Summary

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed Dirk K. Greineder's convictions for the deliberately premeditated murder of his wife and the denial of his amended motion for a new trial. The defendant raised claims involving closure of jury selection, admission of DNA and prior-bad-acts evidence, prosecutorial questioning, witness recantation, juror exposure to extraneous information, ineffective assistance of counsel, and suppression issues. The court affirmed the convictions and denial of the amended new-trial motion and declined to exercise its powers under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

Holdings

1. The defendant failed to establish a constitutional closure of the individual voir dire because there was no court order or other official action excluding the public or media.
2. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion by declining to recuse himself after issuing initial findings concerning the public-trial claim.
3. The admission of the DNA analyst's testimonial test-result details through another expert was hearsay error, but the error was not prejudicial; the testifying expert's independent opinion based on admissible material and customary expert reliance did not violate the Sixth Amendment.
4. Evidence of the defendant's extramarital sexual activity was admissible because it was relevant to motive and its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect in the circumstances of this case.
5. The prosecutor's questioning and closing argument were not improper because they addressed prior inconsistent statements rather than an exercise of the right to remain silent, and the defendant had not received Miranda warnings when he made the statements.
6. The recantation concerning the footprint evidence did not warrant a new trial because it did not cast real doubt on the justice of the conviction or create a substantial likelihood of a different verdict.
7. The jury's use of a banana to observe whether the gloves could create dot and swipe patterns did not constitute exposure to extraneous matter requiring a new trial.
8. Counsel was not ineffective for declining to file a Lanigan motion or for selecting and presenting the DNA experts used at trial because the decisions were not manifestly unreasonable and the defendant did not show that a reliability challenge would have succeeded.
9. The court did not need to decide whether the receipt was suppressible because counsel's failure to seek suppression did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.
10. Counsel was not ineffective for declining to suppress evidence from the search of the defendant's Toyota because the decision was a reasonable tactical choice and was not manifestly unreasonable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the defendant's constitutional right to a public trial was violated because the individual voir dire was closed to the public or media.
2. Whether the trial judge was required to recuse himself after submitting initial factual findings concerning the public-trial claim.
3. Whether admission through a testifying expert of details of DNA testing performed by a nontestifying analyst violated the defendant's confrontation rights or constituted prejudicial hearsay.
4. Whether evidence of the defendant's extramarital sexual activity was improperly admitted as prior bad acts evidence.
5. Whether the prosecutor improperly elicited or argued from the defendant's prearrest or postarrest silence and inconsistent accounts.
6. Whether newly discovered recantation evidence and a jury experiment with a banana required a new trial.
7. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the reliability or admissibility of the DNA evidence.
8. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to suppress a hardware-store receipt seized under a warrant.
9. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to suppress evidence derived from a warrantless search of the defendant's automobile.
10. Whether cumulative error or the court's extraordinary review under G. L. c. 278, § 33E warranted relief.

Disposition

affirmed