People v. Genrich.
2025 COA 49. No. 23CA1183. Crim. P. 35(c)—Postconviction Remedies—New Trial Based on Newly Discovered Evidence—Changed Scientific Standards—Probability of Acquittal.
May 15, 2025
Genrich was convicted of two counts of first degree extreme indifference murder and multiple other felonies in connection with a series of pipe bombings from 1989 to 1991. The evidence connected tools found in his apartment to toolmarks on the bombs through the expert testimony of O’Neil. In 2016, Genrich filed a Crim. P. 35(c) motion based on newly discovered evidence, alleging that the science underlying expert toolmark evidence presented at his original trial was no longer endorsed by mainstream science. The postconviction court concluded that the scientific basis for O’Neil’s testimony on handheld toolmark analysis was no longer supported by mainstream science, and it determined that O’Neil’s testimony was “effectively neutralized” such that another trial would probably result in an acquittal. Accordingly, the postconviction court granted Genrich a new trial.
On appeal, the People argued that the postconviction court abused its discretion by determining that the new evidence was sufficiently material to warrant a new trial, asserting that the new evidence is simply impeaching and cumulative of the evidence presented at trial. Thus, the question on appeal was whether the new evidence was sufficiently material such that it would probably result in an acquittal if presented at another trial. Here, at trial, the expert testified that he matched tools found in Genrich’s apartment to toolmarks on the bombs “to the exclusion of any other tool.” However, his testimony was wholly undermined by the new scientific evidence, which severely undermined a key element of the prosecution’s case: the bomber’s identity. And without the toolmark analysis testimony, there was support in the record for the postconviction court to conclude that the jury would likely acquit Genrich of the crimes for which he was accused. Accordingly, the new evidence was sufficiently material, and not merely cumulative or impeaching of the evidence presented at the original trial.
The People also argued that even if O’Neil’s testimony was effectively neutralized, the postconviction court erred by concluding that an acquittal was probable based on the other evidence presented at Genrich’s original trial, because there was overwhelming evidence of Genrich’s guilt. Here, though each piece of evidence the People listed might increase the likelihood that Genrich was the bomber, no piece of evidence directly or definitively tied Genrich to the bombs. Further, the defense presented evidence sufficient to call into question much of the circumstantial evidence that the prosecution presented. Accordingly, the postconviction court’s conclusion was supported by the record.
The order for a new trial was affirmed.