UNITED STATES V. TRENKLER, 61 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 1995) CASE BRIEF

UNITED STATES V. TRENKLER

61 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 1995)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Trenkler (D) appealed his conviction of conspiracy, and receipt of explosive materials with knowledge and intent that they would be used to kill, injure and intimidate.

FACTS: Trenkler (D) was convicted on bombing charges. A bomb exploded at the Roslindale home of Shay Sr. killing one Boston police officer and severely injuring another. The two officers had been dispatched to Shay's home to investigate a suspicious object located in Shay's driveway. The investigation culminated in the indictment of D and Shay Jr (D1). D filed a severance motion and the government tried the two Ds separately. D1 was first and he was convicted. At D's trial, the government tried to prove that D built the bomb. To establish this, the government wanted to enter evidence that D had built a previous remote controlled bomb that had exploded in Quincy in 1986. The government contended that the similarities between the bombs compelled the conclusion that D built the Shay bomb. The government filed a motion in limine seeking to enter that prior evidence and the court ruled the evidence admissible, finding it was relevant on the issues of identity, skill, knowledge, and intent. Counsel stipulated that D had built the Quincy bomb. The casebook then goes into the details of the Quincy bomb (page 187 Green 3rd.) and then goes into the details of the Roslindale Bomb (page 188). Testimony showed that D and D1 had been seen together and D1's address book had D's current pager number in it. D1 had also left several messages for D. The government asserted that D used D1 to purchase the electronic components used in the bomb and they introduced sales receipts for a toggle switch purchased at the Radio Shack store across the street from where D was installing a satellite dish. Debris of that same switch was recovered from the crime site. Explosive experts were used to explain the differences and similarities between the two bombs. The government witness testified that the evidence pointed to a signature of a single bomb maker. The defense expert testified that there were too many dissimilarities to conclude that the same person built both bombs and that the similarities that existed lacked sufficient distinguishing qualities to identify the two bombs as the handiwork of a specific individual. The government also used it EXIS database to support the inference that D built both bombs. D was found guilty and D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner