Skip to main content
· 8/29/2019

v. Genrich

Citations

  • 2019 COA 132

Syllabus

A grand jury indicted defendant on two counts of murder and related felonies arising from a series of pipe bombs detonated in Grand Junction. At defendant's trial, the prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of O'Neil, an expert in firearms and toolmark identification, who described the unique marks made by each cutting tool to support the theory that defendant constructed each of the bombs with tools in his possession. Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and other felonies. Years later, defendant moved under Crim. P. 35(c) for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, which consisted of an expert opinion that there was no scientific basis for most of O'Neil's opinions. The expert relied on a 2009 report commissioned by Congress and published by the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council of the National Academies, that found toolmark identification evidence had not been scientifically validated. The motion was denied without a hearing. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court erred in denying him an evidentiary hearing. For newly discovered evidence to warrant a new trial, the new evidence must demonstrate sufficient materiality to suggest that, when considered with all evidence presented at trial, a reasonable jury would likely conclude there was a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt and thereby reach an acquittal verdict. If the facts alleged in a Crim. P. 35(c) motion, taken as true, may entitle a defendant to a new trial, the court must conduct an evidentiary hearing. Here, the expert opinion that there was no scientific basis for most of O'Neil's opinions did not exist at the time of trial. And although defendant proffered his own expert to rebut O'Neil's testimony, the toolmark identification methods used by O'Neil were generally accepted at the time. Further, most of the other evidence against defendant was arguably insufficient to establish his guilt. Given the proffered expert testimon

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.