Thursday, March 14, 2013
Wellesley man accused of murdering his wife in '99 requested a new trial, a request which Massachusetts' highest court denied.
The request for a new trial in the Greineder case has been denied by the Commonwealth's highest court. Dirk Greineder, who was convicted of killing his wife, Mabel Greineder, in 1999, requested a new trial. His lawyers were trying to get a new trial on the grounds that Greineder's constititutional right to face his accuser was denied. In November, we reported that the court was to hear his appeal. A slip opinion posted on the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court website earlier today indicated that the court has denied his motion for a new trial. The high court rejected the same argument two years ago on a previous appeal. But in the meantime, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Massaschusetts' High Court's previous ruling.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled police don't need a search warrant to look at a cellphone's call list after arresting the phone's owner. As courts around the country grapple with the issue, tell us: is this 'reasonable' search and seizure?
What's the difference between personal information and correspondence you have physically stored in your home, and similar information that's on your cellphone? And what should police have access to without a warrant? It's a question that courts across the nation are dealing with it and one that arose here in Massachusetts on Wednesday, when the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that police don't need a search warrant to look at the call list of a person's cellphone during while searching that person's personal property after an arrest. However, in writing the court's opinion for Commonwealth vs. Demetrius A. Phifer, Justice Margot Botsford cited other court cases that raise questions about the extent that law enforcement officials can access …
Friday, November 9, 2012
Dirk Greineder, the Wellesley allergist convicted of murdering his wife in 2001, has appealed his case to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Dirk Greineder, the Wellesley allergist convicted of murdering his wife in 2001, has appealed his case to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
The state's highest court today heard — again — an appeal from lawyers of Wellesley doctor Dirk Greineder, who was convicted of killing his wife, Mabel Greineder, in 1999. According to the Boston Herald, justices heard Greineder's lawyers argue that his constititutional right to face his accuser was denied because DNA evidence presented at his trial was presented, not by the analyst who actually handled the evidence that led to his conviction, but by her supervisor. The high court rejected the same argument two years ago on a previous appeal. But in the meantime, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Massaschusetts' High Court's previous ruling. The Herald says Greineder himself was not present at today's hearing.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Convicted Wellesley doctor Dirk Greineder's case is back for review after a recent Supreme Court ruling on DNA testimony.
The Associated Press reports that U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ordered Massachusetts' courts to review the case of convicted Wellesley resident Dirk Greineder. The high court's order for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to reconsider the case comes after a recent Supreme Court ruling about DNA testimony. The Brigham & Women's Hospital physician was convicted in 2001 of killing his wife on October 31, 1999 at Morses Pond in Wellesley; at trial prosecutors said he murdered Mabel Greineder after she discovered his involvement with prostitutes and Internet porn. He was sentenced to life in prison for the murder. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court denied Greineder a new trial in the fall of 2010.
LCT
3:43 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
So the consensus of the posters here don't think it's OK to have warrantless searches? Interesting as I see some of the same people posting here who don't give a fig about my 2nd Amendment rights are now concerned about their 4th Amendment rights. It's evidently OK to pick & choose which Amendment can be trampled? It's all or nothing folks. That's how our government works. Which Amendment shall …   more ›