Verdict Reached In Boston Bombing Trial 250
An anonymous reader writes "A Boston jury has reached a verdict in the trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who admitted that he planted a bomb at the finish line of the Boston Marathon that left three dead and wounded 264 others. After deliberating for 11½ hours the jury has found Dzhokhar guilty on all 30 charges brought against him."
Stop dragging it out (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Go ahead and give him a life sentence and get this over with. He'll die soon enough in prison, especially of the guards "accidentally" happen to be looking the other way. He's pretty recognizable, and he definitely won't be the most popular position no matter where he is sent to.
They might send him to the supermax prison in Colorado, where the federal government has sent many a high-profile convict. Interaction with others, even guards, is stricly limited and there is 100% (supposedly) video surveillance. The one hour a day they get to exercise is in a cage all alone.
Errr... Duh (Score:4, Interesting)
The defense, in their opening statement, admitted the defendant committed the crime. A trial to determine his guilt was merely a formality leading up to the penalty phase. Everybody, including the prosecution, defense (and presumably the defendant), and the judge all understood this. But it must be a slow news day, as every media outlet is making this out to be a big deal.
if he's executed, (Score:3)
Won't that make him a martyr?
Re:Why did it take so long? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most news analysts had a guilty verdict as a foregone conclusion, with the real question being whether the bomber would face the death penalty. It's strange that it took 11 and a half hours to reach the verdict.
Because (1) news analysts aren't juries, and (2) we try to be careful when considering whether or not to hold a man culpable for mass-murder.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not really strange at all. The jury had 30 counts to slog through. That's a fair amount of paperwork and procedure what with discussion and voting and so forth. And it seems like they were contentious about making sure they understood the law before passing judgment given the questions they asked the judge. Lord knows these verdicts will be scrutinized and appealed. You want to get it right so he doesn't get off on a technicality.
Re:Why did it take so long? (Score:4, Interesting)
11 1/2 hours for 30 charges is only 23 min for each charge.
Remember that they have to deliberate EACH count separately, so if you ask me that was pretty fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's strange that it took 11 and a half hours to reach the verdict.
Maybe the catering for the jurors was good . . . ?
Re: (Score:2)
If you've ever been on a jury hearing a trial for a violent felony, you'd understand. Despite the feeling you have that the world is full of irresponsible morons, when you put people in that jury room most of them understand that they have a man's life in their hands on one hand, and the safety and order of society in the other.
It's very likely the most serious and important thing you'll do ever do in your entire life. You do not want to f*ck it up, even if the answer seems obvious when you walk into deli
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, just a show-off who needed to work on his career. The longer the trial, the more often his name will be in the news.
What, you thought GAs had any kind of qualms exploiting terrorists attacks for their own career?
Re: (Score:2)
"Killed X people. He admits it. His lawyers admit it. We have video proving he did it." "Yep, guilty".
"Injured Y people. He admits it. His lawyers admit it. We have video proving he did it." "Yep, guilty".
"Conspired to do the above. He admits it. His lawyers admit it. We have video proving he did it." "Yep, guilty".
"Used a firearm to do the above. He admits it. His lawyers admit it. We have video proving he did it." "Yep, guilty".
"Did the above in a public place. He admits i
Re:Why did it take so long? (Score:5, Informative)
There's process involved with each charge to ensure the jury is doing more than rubber stamping things. It's probably overkill in this particular case but it's important for the judicial system to have the processes in place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Given his poor defense, I'm really not all that surprised. Though I wonder how it will flesh out in appeals if he gets the death penalty. One might argue the poor quality defense would force a retrial if they can convince an appeals court of incompetence or something like that.
What? This guy PLANTED one of the devices that killed people. I think his defense was poor because the evidence was clear that he was a willing participant in the crime.
No doubt there will be lots of appeals either way. It's the nature of the legal system in it's bend over backwards to protect the rights of criminals and assuring that their due process rights are protected. It's not evidence in the unfairness of a trial, but evidence that we are willing to expend a LOT of effort to make sure things are fair.
Re:Not a surprise (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
He was in the US legally, and thus is afforded the same Constitutional protections as any other perp.
Re: (Score:2)
So we can round up all the illegal aliens and deprive them of their due process?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ACCUSED would be better than "citizens". It can still be profoundly frustrating for victim's and their families.
Re: (Score:2)
Not after he has already been convicted. "Criminal" is the right term for the appeals process that determines if there was unfairness in the trial here.
Re: (Score:2)
Follow the thread up. Read down. You'll see that what I said is correct.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. People miss the point of this all the time. The rights you see granted to criminals aren't there for the benefit of the criminals. They're for YOUR benefit in the event you are brought up on charges but are actually innocent. Which actually happens sometimes.
YOU have the right of appeal in case you, innocent of any crime, are charged and convicted because someone screwed up. It's a consequence, not the intent, that the legitimately guilty also have that right. We can't take it from them witho
Re: (Score:2)
My point was that people win or lose their case based on the quality of defense that's presented, not whether they're actually guilty or not. People who can afford to throw legions of lawyers at their defense can get away with murder, literally. This guy had a piss poor defense so it's no surprise he was convicted, regardless of whether he was a brainwashed pawn of his brother or a willing and eager participant. I believe firmly that it was the latter rather than the former. But a very well paid defense
Re: (Score:2)
Right there you're admitting he's guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did I ever say he wasn't?
Re: (Score:2)
then why that statement? You obviously have some doubt as to his guilt or you wouldn't say such an inflammatory statement. I have no doubt and all Ive seen was what was presented on CNN for better then a month. There was no leather glove to cast doubt, no timetable questions, no question of the stuff he bought, no question he was the one in the boat "small wonder he didn't get killed in it"
Re: (Score:2)
That stretch makes absolutely no sense to me.
My comment was about how little the defense team did to try and get him off. I made no presumption of his actual guilt or innocence in my opening statement. I made no implication of my assumption of his guilt or innocence. I made a comment about how little was presented in his defense, suggesting that if their intention was to get the jury to find him not guilty, they didn't do a very good job. I have no idea how you can read that and think I assume he's inn
Re: (Score:2)
My comment was about how little the defense team did to try and get him off
There was no chance, and trying to do so would probably have gotten pushback from the court. Judges can tell when you're intentionally wasting their time, and they usually don't like it.
He was seen on camera with the backpack. He freely admitted (before the police ever caught him) to doing it.
It was absolutely obvious. The defense could try for one thing, and one thing only: keep them out of the electric chair. If the defense chose the "Oh, he didn't do it" argument, then they would lose. Worse yet, they wo
Re: (Score:2)
How jaded... I feel sorry for you.
When you are in criminal court, the rules are skewed to favor the defendant. It starts with innocent until proven guilty and keeps going from there. What you see on TV is not how it really works. Criminal court is almost a ritual like proceeding where the defense gets the benefit of EVERY doubt.
Can a marginal case be "purchased" by spending lots of money? Sure, you might be able to get an otherwise guilty defendant off if you spend enough, but the chances of that are
Re:Not a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever actually been in a criminal court? Defending yourself against even an offense as trivial as a speeding ticket is enough to make it blatantly obvious how defendants get railroaded in this country.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't compare a civil offense like a speeding ticket to a criminal trial. The standards of proof are completely different.
In the case of a civil offense, the standard is preponderance of evidence. A cops word is pretty much good enough for that.
In a criminal trial the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. That means no reasonable person can have a reasonable doubt that you did it. HUGE difference.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because almost everyone in court for speeding is guilty and hoping for a reduced sentence or guilty and an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Every once in a while there is someone who is innocent. My elderly mother was driving the Prius through New Mexico and got a ticket for something like 93 in a 75. Turns out the cop tagged someone else with his radar and didn't feel like chasing them down so he gave the ticket to my mother. Fortunately, my father was able to get the GPS logs from the nav system showing her driving 70 through that whole stretch of road and had the lawyer get the ticket tossed.
But cases like that are rare. For the most par
Re: (Score:2)
That's because almost everyone in court for speeding is guilty and hoping for a reduced sentence or guilty and an idiot.
Yup plus
- guilty, but is protesting the system by showing up. (if they are going to steal $200+ from me via a speed trap, I'm going to at least force them to lose a percentage of that to paying a judge, and police officer, etc to formally take it from me. Especially when it was a BS speed trap on a stretch of road where the flow of traffic is always higher than the posted limit.
- guilty, but hoping the police officer doesn't attend to win a default judgement. Hey, if you've got nowhere else to be that day, why not try for a free pass on a ticket.
- guilty, but the police officer screwed up the ticket. I've won on prima facie cases before. ... well not won... in actual fact the police at the very last second asked that the case be dismissed. (So they too are playing the "hope I don't show up in court to win a default judgement game"; because they knew damned well they'd have lost their case the moment I opened my mouth.
- actually not guilty; it happens. Especially with speed camera based systems, where the ticket was issued by mail.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever actually been in a criminal court? Defending yourself against even an offense as trivial as a speeding ticket is enough to make it blatantly obvious how defendants get railroaded in this country.
Don't be railroaded, take a lawyer next time. Seriously, if it's your word that says you didn't and a police officer says you did who's going to win that one? Unless you say the police officer, then what's the point of law enforcement? I understand your frustration, but if you are tried for murder, there is a bit more to criminal court for you than having to pay the fine. Oh, and in case you wondered, YES I have gone to court for a traffic ticket I don't believe I deserved and lost, paid my fine and move
Re: (Score:3)
Most trials are biased against the defendant because most defendants that go to trial are, in fact, guilty. Most police and prosecutors do try to catch the actual perpetrators of crimes-- and don't typically proceed to trial unless the evidence supports at least a reasonable chance of getting a guilty verdict.
Tell that to the guy who just got released from death row 10 YEARS after the evidence came forth that he was innocent.
Re: (Score:2)
Most trials are biased against the defendant because most defendants that go to trial are, in fact, guilty. Most police and prosecutors do try to catch the actual perpetrators of crimes-- and don't typically proceed to trial unless the evidence supports at least a reasonable chance of getting a guilty verdict.
Tell that to the guy who just got released from death row 10 YEARS after the evidence came forth that he was innocent.
Hey, it ain't perfect. There's a lot that needs fixing, a lot of room for improvement.
Your example of a wrongfully-convicted death row inmate does not invalidate the GP's assertion that MOST people convicted actually committed the crime they were being tried for.
Re: (Score:2)
That's only fair considering everything else is running against the defendant in a criminal case. The general attorney has the whole of police and by some margin more funds than the average person on his side to find enough for a conviction.
Add a not-too-fond-of-defending-you court-appointed lawyer and I guess it doesn't look so favorable for the defendant anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
When you are in criminal court, the rules are skewed to favor the defendant. It starts with innocent until proven guilty and keeps going from there. What you see on TV is not how it really works. Criminal court is almost a ritual like proceeding where the defense gets the benefit of EVERY doubt.
This is by design, it's because we'd rather be afraid of criminals than the state and I agree with it completely.
Re: (Score:2)
Cheap defense = conviction. Expensive defense = good possibility of acquittal.
If money could get you out of jail, then Madoff would not be in jail right now. And no poor person would ever be acquitted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Madoff case is different. When rich people are the victims, they ensure (often times indirectly) that the person on trial is thrown in the slammer. In cases like that, it's money against money which tilts the scales.
And sure, poor people with a public defender sometimes get off. The rule isn't absolute. And the degree of the crime does play a factor. The more serious the charge, the less likely someone is to be an exception to the rule.
And, as my "good possibility of acquittal" implies, money doesn
Re: (Score:2)
And, as my "good possibility of acquittal" implies, money doesn't always get you off but it makes it orders of magnitude more likely.
You don't have data on this point, you're making stuff up......you're saying these things because they fit your pre-conceived ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, there's no evidence of people with no option but the public defender getting railroaded and no one with money for an expensive legal team ever got away with murder...
Give me a break.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you have reams of evidence to prove me wrong? I welcome you to present it.
Re:Not a surprise (Score:5, Informative)
You might want to read up on Judy Clark, his attorney. She isn't some schmuck - indeed, she has represented some of the highest profile death penalty eligible cases in the country over the past twenty years.
If the evidence is overwhelming, as it was in this case, it is NOT a good defense to "throw BS" at the jury - the prosecution will simply tear up your defense and leave the jury with a very bad impression of your client.
The "bad impression" part is important when the penalty phase, decided by the same jury, comes up. Ms. Clark was preparing for the penalty phase, hoping to make the jury sympathetic to her client so they would just sentence him to life in prison rather than the death penalty. She, quite correctly, understood a conviction was impossible to avoid on most charges because the evidence shows her client is guilty beyond all rational doubt -- well beyond the "reasonable doubt" standard. Ms. Clark, effectively, used the guilt/innocence phase of the trial to start her argument in the penalty phase.
Re: (Score:2)
I question why she went to trial in the first place and why she didn't just have him plead guilty in exchange for taking the death penalty off the table.
I suppose she has to do what her client tells her to do though. I suspect that's why they went through the hassle of a trial they knew they couldn't win.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a fair point.
Re: (Score:2)
The prosecutor likely refused to make a deal.
If the prosecutor was absolutely sure they could get convictions on enough counts to insure that the defendant would get life w/o ever being released, they would have little motivation to make such a deal.
One reason to make a deal would be to save money on the initial trial and appeals. However, this would be balanced against arguments for seeking the death penalty. These arguments might include a higher deterrent value of a death sentence, better closure for vic
Re: (Score:2)
Makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the nature of the legal system in it's bend over backwards to protect the rights of criminals and assuring that their due process rights are protected.
And yet each of the multiple requests to move the trial to a less blatantly biased location were denied. The poor fellow might be guilty as hell, but the cards were still stacked against him. Personally, I'd like to see the judge disbarred and the verdict vacated. Even the appellate court told the judge to get with the program and move the trial.
Putting aside Tsarnaev's culpability, this trial was as bad as those we rail against in banana republics and oppressive regimes with high and mighty tones. It was
Re: (Score:2)
Given the overwhelming evidence, I doubt seriously that a venue change would have made any difference and I think the judge knew that.
Will they bring it up at appeal? Probably. Will it really make any difference in the end? I don't know. I'm not sure what threshold there is for overturning a verdict based on the venue and to what extent they have to prove that he didn't get a fair trial. Do they consider the case as a whole when making that determination? If so, I wonder if the overwhelming evidence wi
Defense was never arguing innocence (Score:5, Insightful)
Given his poor defense, I'm really not all that surprised. Though I wonder how it will flesh out in appeals if he gets the death penalty. One might argue the poor quality defense would force a retrial if they can convince an appeals court of incompetence or something like that.
The defense strategy was never to argue that he was innocent, it was to argue that he should receive life in prison rather than the death penalty. That will mainly occur over the next few weeks in the sentencing phase of the trial. This first guilt phase could've been done on day 1, but the prosecution wanted to grandstand.
Re: (Score:3)
The more I read and think about it, this sounds more plausible than trying to tie up the courts with a defense incompetence appeals.
Re: (Score:2)
"Hopefully he'll become an example that deters others."
Any form of punishment will never be a determent for crimes driven by religious fanatics, such as radical Islam in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
I would support that, but not because I might've harbor some lofty respect for life; it is far cheaper to lock up this witless git and throw away the key than pay for the endless appeals required in a capital case.
Re: (Score:2)
And sentencing could be completed on day two if the purpose of justice were rehabilitation and not revenge (which legal types call "retribution"), because everyone who commits a violent crime would get the same sentence: banishment from society until the person is no longer a danger to others.
Re: (Score:2)
And a defense attorney that doesn't hurt from getting national press at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Given his poor defense, I'm really not all that surprised. Though I wonder how it will flesh out in appeals if he gets the death penalty. One might argue the poor quality defense would force a retrial if they can convince an appeals court of incompetence or something like that.
The "But my lawyers sucked!" argument very rarely works. If it did work, then a significant amount of defendants would deliberately get bad lawyers, roll the dice, and if they lose ask for a retrial. Even trying this trick by representing yourself as your own lawyer doesn't work. People tried that in the past and then when they lost, they argued that they had incompetence representation, namely themselves. I'm sure that his next set of lawyers will indeed argue that his defense was incompetent, but the
Re: (Score:2)
Per comments above, the more I read and think about it, I think that the more plausible explanation is they were laying the ground work for "please don't give him the death penalty" than "don't convict him".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why he tried to put up a defense at all. The case against him was overwhelming. There's nothing the defense could do to keep him from getting convicted. He should have exchanged a guilty plea for taking the death penalty off the table and saved the expense of a trial.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes the job of defense isn't to prove innocence, but insure they are having a fair trial.
The goal of the defence for this case, wasn't for this part of the trial, but the next one for sensenticing. If he can get life in prison vs the death penalty, then the defence was successful,
Re: (Score:2)
Would it not make more sense to just exchange a guilty plea for taking the death penalty off the table?
Re: (Score:2)
Would it not make more sense to just exchange a guilty plea for taking the death penalty off the table?
Not if the prosecution has a slam-dunk case. And I don't think a prosecutor would want to be caught soft pedaling a case like this - they are going to prosecute this with utmost vigor.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't disagree with you there.
Re: (Score:2)
In Hasson, the Supreme Court affirmed an order denying a new trial even after finding the defendant presented credible evidence several jurors had been inattentive, i.e., reading a book or working crossword puzzles, during portions of the trial. The majority opinion noted that, due to "the soporific effect of many trials when viewed from a layman's perspective," courts "uniformly decline to order a new trial in the absence of convincing proof that the jurors were actually asleep during material portions of the trial. [Citations.]" (Hasson v. Ford Motor Co., supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 411.) In another case, the appellate court noted, "` he fact that a juror falls asleep during the trial is not ground for disturbing the verdict if it does not appear that his sleep was for such a length of time or at such a stage of the trial as to affect his ability fairly to consider the case.' [Citation.]" Callegari v. Maurer (1935) 4 Cal.App.2d 178, 184.)
And there are cases of defense lawyers and even judges snoring away, and still not grounds for appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
throw his brother under the bus (or as actually happened: under the stolen SUV).
An SUV being driven by him non-the-less..
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. It was the best possible defense, considering the moron scrawled a confessional on the boat he was hiding under. The defense's only hope is to make him out to be a brainwashed follower, with the conveniently dead older brother as some sort of Mansonesque terrorist supergenius.
Re: (Score:3)
Brainwashed follower was about the only defense he had after his actions.
I'm not entirely sure that he has any good choices now. Being executed might be just as good as the million years he's going to be in prison. I suppose I wouldn't pick execution, but holy shit, what a shitty life he has in front of him now, either way.
Good. He earned his shitty future. I'm just sorry that incarcerating him will have almost no effect on the people who will be doing the same sort of thing in the future. People as st
Re: (Score:2)
If h'es not sentenced to death, he'll be sent to the Supermax facility in Florence, CO, for the rest of his life. But he'll probably be put to death, as he should be.
Re: (Score:2)
Why was is better than avoiding a trial by pleading guilty? IANAL obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
The defense never tried to claim innocence. This trial was never about anything other than life in prison versus death penalty. It's a waste of taxpayer money since they certainly could have avoided trial and gotten a guilty plea with life in prison if they had taken the death penalty off the table. Plus you don't want to make martyrs - life in prison is much less glorious.
Re: (Score:2)
A comment like this doesn't surprise me.
Reading comprehension on this site is at an all time low. Especially among people who post AC.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. The US would never have put Osama bin Laden on trial: It would have been a spectacular media circus, with every Muslim in the world cheering for the underdog Martyr.
I was much more expedient to shoot him, and toss him in the drink.
Hey, look at what Rolling Stone did with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: They turned him into an idol for teenage girls. Imagine what they would have done with Osama bin Laden . . . ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Too bad it did not happen on Osama Bin Laden (Score:5, Interesting)
"There happen to be a lot of people around who spend an hour on the Internet and think they know a lot of physics."
-Noam Chomsky
Re: (Score:3)
There are a lot of idiots on the Internet who repeat Chomsky quotes without thinking them through, but I'll admit this one is pretty good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How do you figure that?
While it is true that kerosene (aka "jet fuel") burning in open air will not get hot enough to melt steel, it will raise steel to the curie point, but that is not the case here. Remember that in order to withstand the temperature of the burning kerosene, most steels are not good enough so many turbojet and turbofan components actually utilize titanium and in some cases tungsten(!) alloys in order to resist the heat, because in a forced-air situation kerosene gets hot enough to vaporiz
Re: (Score:3)
That's what happens when a good amount of one burning building collapses on top of another. WTC7? That's your smoking gun?
Re: (Score:2)
but it is cheaper to do it the Chinese way compare to keeping him alive.
Re:Too bad it did not happen on Osama Bin Laden (Score:5, Insightful)
Ya'all do realize that the death "penalty" is actually letting the perpetrator get away with the crime, right?
Death isn't a penalty. It is the fate that every newly-minted, mewling, puking baby gets meted out to him or her as a consequence of being conceived. If it's a penalty, then why do so many seemingly loving, beaming parents sentence their own children to that fate by having them in the first place?
The penalty isn't the death, it's the forfeiture of what was going to be the rest of your life. Even in prison you would experience some moments of levity, joy, and peace, as well as many other experiences. The punishment is denying you these experiences, determining your actions have made you unfit not just for society(prison=removal from society), but of life itself. Life is the last thing a person has, the only thing that once gone can never be gotten back, and taking it away early is the ultimate punishment.
Re: (Score:2)
Life is the last thing a person has, the only thing that once gone can never be gotten back, and taking it away early is the ultimate punishment.
Not to be too morbid, but that assumes that all possible lives are "worth living" and that death is never a preferable choice to living.
Many, many people make choices to die, whether by suicide to relieve pain or because of terminal illness or even for a cause (whether they are a "patriot" with a medal pinned to their chest or a "terrorist" depends on the perspective of those judging). Or, as the stats show, many people commit suicide while in prison as a method of escaping further punishment.
The penal
Re: (Score:2)
A country's legal system doesn't have to lower itself to the level of the criminals it is punishing.
The enemy of your enemy is your friend (Score:2)
Ya right.
Re: (Score:2)
Considered what happened to Aaron Swartz, this prosecutor should lose the case.
Huh? I mean, Swartz got fucked, no question about it, but what the hell are you talking about here?
Re: (Score:2)
Leaving him with the families would likely not result in milkshakes for anyone. Most people have no idea how to kill a guy and they'd probably muck it up badly. Blood everywhere. No one enjoys that.
Re: (Score:2)
Setting aside the moral issues, I thought a large dose of barbiturates worked well enough. Why is the mechanics of it considered difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
Why no deportation?
What? Where would you send him, under what conditions? Are you going to send him to the same nice hotel in Qatar where the dumped those guys from Gitmo? Or were you thinking of sending him to the equivalent of a county jail in his family's home town? You really think that somebody else is going to want to take on the cost and visibility of keeping him housed, fed, and locked down for the next seventy years?
Re: (Score:3)
Conspiracy Theory idiots will make conspiracy theories about anything.
Why don't you make conspiracy theories about the school system that fucked up your science education so badly?