Boston Marathon Bombing Court Appeals Begin: Public Donating For Tsarnaev Funds.

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's attorneys brought up a number of arguments at Moakley Federal Courthouse in Boston. I watched the hearing on the screen in the overflow room. The first order of business was an attempt to reduce the number of charges against the young man. He was convicted of 30 counts, several of which are more than sufficient to result in the death penalty. His attorneys argued that the sheer number of counts against him overwhelmed the jury and caused them to be influenced in favor of the death penalty.

They would like to have a retrial in a different city because the locals of Boston are likely to be driven by revenge since they were personally affected by the tragedy. In their motion, they mentioned that the people on the jury were actively exposed to coverage and opinions about the bombing on Facebook during the trial, and that many of their Facebook friends were Bostonians. Some of the jurists actually made or were exposed to prejudiced comments even before evidence of the crime was presented.

Defense attorneys spent a lot of time bringing up technicalities that in my opinion were not very forceful arguments. Attorney William Fick said many of the charges were unconstitutional because they mentioned "violent physical force." They said the government "conflates the ability to cause injury with violent force." They claimed that setting the bomb down was not technically the use of violent force any more than arson, which is not considered a violent crime even if people are hurt in the process. Regarding the charge of "malicious bombing of property," they argued that the word "malicious" refers to a mental state resulting in "intentional and reckless" behavior but does not imply violent force was used. The carjacking took place because of intimidation - no violence was involved.

Naturally, the government disagreed that the counts needed to be vacated and stated that the decision should be left to the Supreme Court.

In the second part of the hearing, the fiery Attorney Miriam Conrad argued forcefully against the Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) against Tsarnaev. She said there was "no valid argument to justify" having a federal agent monitor attorney visits with Tsarnaev's sisters in prison. In an earlier court hearing "in the shadow of litigation," the court had ruled that the agent would be from a different state and not part of the government prosecution team. He was not to relay information to the prosecutors about their conversations due to "attorney client privilege."

However, in a recent email to the defense lawyers, the government lawyers said that they no longer plan to abide by that agreement and that they want access to the defense's information file. They want to know who visits Tsarnaev and what they talked about. Defense lawyers said the government cannot just unilaterally decide to revoke an agreement, that litigation is far from over and that attorney client privilege still holds. It is not at all normal for prosecutors to get access to defense attorney's private files whether before, during, or after litigation. The government should not decide whether meetings should take place, nor see documents, Conrad argued. The agreement does not say that the information is only private until after the verdict. She said that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is not being treated like any other defendant. There are far more restrictions on his lawyers' ability to defend him, even though he is not just serving a sentence, he is awaiting the death penalty.

The government argued that the presence of Tsarnaev's sisters invalidates attorney-client privilege and that the agreement is not enforceable because the government needs to know if there were visitors who were not expert witnesses, so they can investigate these persons because the government "needs to know if they've ever had problems before." They mentioned Sister Helena, the nun that testified that Tsarnaev was sorry for his actions. They didn't think she should be visiting Tsarnaev because she is not an expert witness.

Conrad replied that listening to the government talk is like Alice looking through the looking glass. The government should have modified the agreement not just send an email saying we aren't following it anymore. Sister Helena was cleared under the heavy restrictions of the SAMs and there is no reason that the government needs to know what she said to him.

As usual, Judge O'Toole mumbled that he would not rule at this time.

The next issue that was discussed was how much money would be taken out of Tsarnaev's commissary to go towards "Mass Fund" which gifted 57 victims with restitution money. The court ruled that Tsarnaev would have to pay $25 per quarter ($100/year), an amount that would be adjusted based on availability. This seems to be aimed at discouraging supporters to donate money in fear that the government will take it. In the past, Tsarnaev received so many donations that the government threatened not to provide him with a free lawyer as he had too much money. Now, nobody is even allowed to send him books. His attorneys were not even allowed to give him a family photo.

Finally, the court discussed the unsealing of documents. As of now, Tsarnaev's trial is unprecedented in terms of how much of the proceedings has gone on under the veil of secrecy. "We are anxious on behalf of a lot of people to unseal the documents," said O'Toole. He ruled that for starters, both defense and prosecution would decide which of their own documents they wished to unseal. After that would come a future discussion on which of the other party's documents the parties would agree to unseal, before arguing about the remaining documents. Clearly the judge is in no hurry for the proceedings to become transparent to the public.

The Tsarnaev case, as with most cases where the defendant is a Muslim, continues to elements and types of issues that normally do not arise in other cases, even when the defendant, who is not Muslim, has committed a mass murder. For example, the fellow who shot up the church got a speedy trial and was not sentenced to death, whereas the Boston Bombing trial went on for years and there is no end in sight.

http://newtrendmag.org/ntma1631.htm

Boston Gears Up for Bombing Trial

http://newtrendmag.org/ntma1583.htm

The past couple weeks have been strange, with the defense for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev filing a motion to keep protesters who were supporting their client away from the courthouse! (?) Tsarnaev’s attorneys oddly argued that the presence of demonstrators, whose arguments vary, would rob Tsarnaev of his right to a fair trial. The defense again frantically requested for a third time a change of venue the late afternoon of New Year’s Eve,arguing that “every member of the jury pool is, in effect, an actual victim of the charged offenses.”

Judge O’Toole routinely denied the defense request at the advice of the prosecution, who insisted that the trial should be conducted in the community most affected by the bombing. "Moving the trial out of the Eastern Division would create an enormous hardship for those victims and their families, depriving many, if not most of them, of any ability to see the trial."

Harvey Silvergate writes in the Boston Globe, “The Oklahoma City bombing prosecution furnishes an instructive precedent that strongly suggests that Tsarnaev should not be tried in Massachusetts. It is a precedent that O’Toole has recklessly misread and misrepresented in denying a venue change… O’Toole ignores yet another precedent, this one right in his own back yard.”

Boston Judge Wolf decided to postpone the sentencing trial of Gary Lee Sampson, who was convicted in 2003 of the carjack killings of three men, Silvergate continues, “out of an abundance of caution, erring on the side of a fair trial that is supposed to be the norm especially when the death penalty hangs in the balance. O’Toole instead is erring on the side of expedition. Efficiency can be overrated when justice, and our own adherence to civilized and constitutional norms, hang in the balance.”

After being found guilty, Sampson was sent to New Hampshire for execution, since Massachusetts does not allow the death penalty. If a Bostonian can be found guilty in Massachusetts and executed in New Hampshire, why can’t a Bostonian get his trial moved to New Hampshire, where the libertarian population is more likely to question the FBI’s story?

Bostonians are largely debating the death penalty vs. life in prison rather than innocence vs. guilt. A 2013 Boston Globe poll found that 57% of Bostonians favored life without parole for Tsarnaev, while 33% favored death.

Jury selection is expected to begin on Monday, January 5, 2014.

Attorney Judy Clarke has made overtures to prosecutors about a plea bargain, according to a lawyer close to the case. But so far she has been rebuffed, reports the NY Times. Imprisoned friend Stephen Silva is expected to confess to selling or giving a gun with an obliterated serial number to the Tsarnaevs in February 2013, due to FBI evidence against him obtained by the wiretapping of an informant, two months before the April events. Media insinuates, but court documents do not clearly link the gun to the killing of MIT officer Sean Collier.

The official prosecution narrative centers on the story that Tsarnaev, angry about the killing of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, scrawled incriminating messages (“Stop killing our innocent people and we will stop”) on the inside of the boat where he was captured. This message appeared about three weeks after his arrest, just in time for the grand jury hearing, and is therefore rather suspect as evidence. I think it is baloney that Jahar just happened to have a Sharpie and suddenly began to compose a manifesto after having been shot multiple times.

What is important to acknowledge though, is that Bostonians, and the American people in general, are desperate to execute Tsarnaev as a terrorist rather than to pity him as a wayward teen - BECAUSE of the erroneous belief that he was retaliating against America for propagating massacres overseas. BECAUSE of the deep dark guilt inside the American conscience. The hysteria that this kind of propaganda arouses points to a dark side of American ignorance and exceptionalism. The idea that a Muslim kid might say that retaliation is justified makes this a high profile case. He might even end up publicly hanged on TV like Saddam Hussein (God forbid)! But what about the random jerk off his meds who guns down a classroom? Not news. The United States is treating Tsarnaev like a scapegoat that they can just load up with all their baggage and send him out to the desert to “take away the sins of the world.”

Indeed if Tsarnaev had committed bombings in the name of Islam, in retaliation for Muslim deaths overseas, he would be protected by international law. The United Nations could recognize him as a political prisoner and he would enjoy certain rights enforceable by the international community. If Tsarnaev is truly an Islamic jihad terrorist, where is his legal support? Where is his army? There is none because he never was a jihadi despite some general interest in Islamic causes such as sympathy for Gaza and Syria. He also has no background of crime or any issue that would consider him to be a disturbed youth. He was a lifeguard, who volunteered to help handicapped kids. He was a well adjusted and very popular kid. 

Is that what this trial is going to boil down to? The right of a well-adjusted American kid to openly care about Muslim suffering?

If Jahar didn't bomb the marathon, who did?

Boston - Accused Marathon bomber, Dzhokhar (Jahar) Tsarnaev’s last pre-trial hearing took place on December 18th. He still resolutely refuses to plead guilty for a crime he claims he did not commit. I watched the proceedings in the overflow room and also participated in a protest outside the courthouse, where I was interviewed by reporters from every news channel.

I explained to them that I want a fair trial for Jahar. The public deserves to know what really happened. We need to make sure we got the right guy. Erroneous media reports based on leaks from anonymous law enforcement officials have been presented to the public in lieu of evidence, and have greatly biased the jury pool against the defendant before he has even gone to trial. As to whether or not I personally think he’s innocent, I would say, based on past prosecutions by US Attorney Carmen Ortiz’s team in front of the same Judge O’Toole, that it is highly probable that the young man is simply a victim of anti-Islamic prejudice.

For example, Tarek Mehanna was sentenced to over 17 years for joking comments he made on the internet, which the government misconstrued as planning to commit terrorist acts. His trial was based on highly inflammatory statements against the Islamic religion, irrelevant evidence such as beheading videos, expert testimony from career neocons, and plea bargains from acquaintances who were facing decades in prison unless they testified against Mehanna. Based on the media reports, during the time of the trial, many people in the Muslim community refused to stand up for their brother and spent energy distancing themselves from him. It was only after sentencing that he was allowed to speak out about his unjust conviction.

In Jahar’s case, he is not just accused of thought crimes but actual explosions that killed and maimed people. If he is innocent, then the real bomber is still at large. In the worst case scenario, Jahar was chosen as a fall guy to cover up for a plot that is much more sinister. So far, there have been no bomb making materials found in either his home nor that of his brother. The government has never once claimed that the fireworks that his friends took out of his dorm room were linked to the bombing. The government prosecuted the friends for lying about throwing away the backpacks, in order to pressure them to testify against their friend.

If there is evidence that Jahar and his brother Tamerlan had something to do with the Boston Marathon bombings, then the public still deserves to know the bigger picture. I have no problem with executing a criminal who committed murder but I have a huge problem with someone being executed in order to silence him. The government has silenced almost every potential defense witness. Jahar’s friends, relatives, friends of friends and even relatives of friends of friends have been deported, imprisoned and even killed by the FBI. The defense complains that they are having trouble getting anyone to talk due to government intimidation.

Furthermore, defense lawyers have complained that the prosecution is being evasive instead of presenting clear arguments as to why they believe he is the bomber. They don’t seem to want to “unravel the mystery.”

I don’t know if the truth will ever come out in this courtroom. It is not being played as a straightforward prosecution. The government is playing chess, not proving their point.

Hearing after hearing, the defense has been begging the prosecution to present their argument. Instead, the government has dumped on them millions of pages of unsearchable computer records without any explanation as to their significance. US Attorney Weinreb has consistently argued, with a smirk on his face, that if the government were to present their case to the defense, the defense would be able to come up with a counter-argument, which would be unfair to prosecutors; therefore they need to keep the element of surprise. Yet at the same time, the government has been illegally feeding news stories to the media. The defense complained that they are learning more about the government’s narrative of this case from the television than they are getting from the other attorneys. The government is not playing fair, which leads to the question of whether it is covering up the truth.

In 95% of cases since 9/11, where Muslims are accused of terrorism related acts, the FBI has been involved. We need to know more about the extent of FBI involvement in the Boston Marathon bombing suspects’ lives. His mother stated to reporters last year that the FBI had been interviewing Tamerlan on a regular basis for two years before the bombing. He had been asked to become an informant. They knew him well. So, the most likely scenario is either that he bombed the marathon as an employee of the FBI, or else that he was framed for a crime he did not commit in retaliation for refusing to become an informant for the FBI.

I don’t want to live in a country where the FBI can just come into your house and murder you because you knew somebody, where they can just accuse you of a bombing and then, instead of presenting evidence in a court of law, make up TV docu-dramas about you without even consulting you for your side of the story. Perhaps it’s not as important to ordinary Americans that their government obey the rule of law, but as someone whose parents came to this country and swore their allegiance to the US Constitution, I see no other course of action possible other than standing up and fighting for what my country stands for.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is an American citizen with rights. He came to this country as a refugee. He loved living here. He had many friends, no criminal record, and absolutely no motive to hurt anyone. If people don’t stand up for his rights, next week it could be your son in shackles.

Tsarnaev Case Inches Forward

TMO 

The most recent status conference for Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev took place Thursday, September 18, 2014 in front of Judge George O’Toole. The defense lawyers in attendance were David Bruck and Timothy Watkins; the prosecution team consisted of William Weinreb, Aloke Chakravarty, Nadine Pellegrini and the newly hired African American assistant attorney Donald Cabell.

Considering the gravity of the case, the atmosphere in the full courtroom before the judge entered was strangely chatty and jovial, almost like a cocktail party, in which employees affiliated with government and media appeared to be pleased as punch to see each other. Only the defense lawyers appeared to be taking their responsibilities towards the American people to “get at the truth” seriously.

Tsarnaev, who has not been seen since his first court hearing when he pled “Not Guilty,” was again not present for the proceeding. The prosecution stated that they want Tsarnaev to be present during the final pre-trial and for jury selection. His lawyers said they will ask him how he feels about this.

The hearing was once again an exercise in hypocrisy on the part of the government, which made clear that the prosecution is more interested in convicting the young man as soon as possible than unravelling the mystery of the bombing. They can’t let this case settle down because if the case were tried on facts rather than emotion, a conviction would not be guaranteed. The two sides do not share an even playing field.

The government has 177 FBI scientists and technicians working on this case while the defense has only a handful of lawyers that have almost no information to work with other than what the government has provided to them. Even as recently as this week the defense was flooded with more discovery from the government, which they should have received a year ago, argued defense attorney Bruck, who complained:

“The government said they were finished in September but we continue to receive matters… critical issues.”

US Attorney Weinreb, refusing to cooperate in good faith, cynically mocked defense arguments from previous hearings:

“We have received absolutely nothing,” Weinreb complained. “The defense refuses to hand over any discovery unless it will be used in court. The law needs to be interpreted in a responsible manner. The defense is gathering things at the last minute… A couple weeks after government gives discovery, the defense is supposed to respond. The government needs these materials to strategize decisions. We need to know what witness are going to say. We need reciprocal discovery.”

The defense reminded the court that this is about a human life: “It is not true that there is equivalence between the government and defense.”

In what would appear to be obstruction of justice, prosecutors refuse to hand over Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s computer data saying “Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is on trial here not his brother.”

How could Tamerlan’s information be irrelevant to the case? Didn’t the brothers supposedly bomb the marathon as a team-according to the media? Tamerlan’s computer data could potentially demonstrate that Jahar was influenced by his brother’s radicalism, but it’s quite likely the data could also potentially show that Tamerlan was not violently motivated and cast doubt on the whole scenario.

Judge O’Toole sided with the prosecution by replying to the defense, “The government needs to hand over information they won’t use?”

While the prosecutors play games, they still continue to push for a November 3 trial date. Tsarnaev’s defense insists they are “utterly unprepared for trial.” Despite the overwhelming amount of irrelevant evidence the defense attorneys have to sift through, as “Tsarnaev’s whole life has been seized by the government,” the defense still has not been advised precisely as to what the government’s actual argument is going to be.

The defense has been hard at work overseas interviewing family and people who knew Tsarnaev. This has proven to be a huge challenge since most people are afraid to speak to the attorneys, a logical fear given what has happened to any of Tsarnaev’s friends who have been willing to speak to authorities.

“We have done our best to meet the trial date. It cannot be done. The defendant has a right to a fair trial but there is a broader interest as well,” Bruck pleaded.

“The day of bombing, Obama said we will find out who did this and why. This is the question everyone wants answered. It is not in the interest of victims for there to be half a trial. We need to get to the bottom of this. There are the gravest reasons for this. It won’t help anyone for the case to be tried before evidence is fully developed.

“If the government hadn’t asked for the death penalty this would have been over a long time ago. Asking court to set date fair to the defendant,” Bruck added.

Weinreb postulated, “Question is, how much time should be allowed to get to the bottom of it. I would wager that if you give them three years they’d take three years.”

Tsarnaev’s attorneys want the trial delayed until September 2015 based on past capital cases involving Russian defendants, which took over 4 years to prepare due to the difficulty of overseas investigating potential mitigating evidence. Compared to the 119 federal death penalty cases in the past decade, the timetable to trial in this case is half the median of others.

The government is still pressuring the defense to provide a list of the arguments their expert witnesses plan to use on why the accused terrorist should live, for example mental health issues, while the defense claims that this request is unconstitutional and refuses to comply since such a list “assumes guilt.” No court has ever provided a list of mitigating factors before the jury pool, Bruck argued.

The defense continues to grapple with the countless unsubstantiated media leaks that are heavily influencing public opinion and thus tainting the future jury.

Tsarnaev Proceedings: Judge Passive While Government Plays Games

TMO 

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s legal proceedings are “at a standstill” because Judge O’Toole refuses to compel the government to play fair.

The defense filed several motions regarding the government’s leaks to the media, which unfairly present the young man as guilty before he’s even gone to trial; the FBI presence during prison visits between family and attorneys, which violates attorney-client privacy privileges; a request for further discovery regarding the alleged confession of Ibrahim Todashev; disputes over disclosure of expert witnesses; defense requests for a searchable index of the millions of pages of “evidence” supplied by the government; and the change of venue request.

Most disturbing is the use of “secret evidence” supplied by the government to the judge, which the defense has no knowledge of. Shortly before they killed him, the FBI claims that Todashev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev had committed a triple murder in Waltham, Massachusetts. This unsubstantiated claim was added as if it were fact into the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev court filings in order to make him appear guilty by association. The judge said he had reviewed the classified government document “in camera” and he saw no reason to compel further discovery in order to allow the defense to question it. Not only is the FBI above the law when it comes to murdering potential witnesses, but their word is considered golden when it comes to clearing themselves of wrongdoing.

The defense made it clear that they would not be ready for trial by November 3, which is the current date that is set. The amount of evidence given to us from the government is “massive and disorganized!” stated the defense. They said it would take months if not years to sort through the millions of pages of documents supplied by the prosecution, if the government would not clearly state their argument. The defense had stated that the only way they even know the government’s story is from the media leaks, which the judge does not seem inclined to put a stop to. He simply advised that a letter be sent out to staff members as well as public officials, to stop commenting to news reporters.

“It’s not our job to make things easy for the defense,” argued US attorney William Weinreb. However, Weinreb seems to believe it is the defense’s job to make things easy for the prosecution.

“Federal criminal trials should not be waged by surprise,” Weinreb ironically stated, while demanding that the defense hand over all of their information regarding witnesses that might testify during the penalty phase of the trial, even though the defense argued that this is not the normal procedure, and that the normal procedure is to focus on proving guilt/innocence first.

Defense attorney Bruck argued that turning over information to the prosecution like mental health analyses would undermine Tsarnaev’s 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination. US attorney Weinreb replied that requiring the defense to turn over documents they will eventually disclose anyway does not violate the 5th amendment.

If he is declared guilty, the defense would discuss Tsarnaev’s emotional past but they don’t want to turn that over now while they fight for his innocence. O’Toole asked if there was any non-personal, non-mental health stuff they could turn over.

“This is not an easy line to draw, and that’s why the courts don’t go there,” Bruck said, trying to main normal government procedure despite the judge’s crumpling.

Bruck insisted that the government has all the information about Tsarnaev while the defense only has whatever information the government has chosen to give them, and that was given to them in a totally unusable format.

“I think we need to put into perspective this claim of fairness, that the government is in the dark,” Bruck said.

Defense attorney Tim Watkins said the government has enormous volumes of documents. Months into this case the defense is still begging the government for a searchable index and some kind of context for these millions of disorganized documents because not only do they need to be reviewed, but the defense needs to determine if these claims regarding fingerprint matches and crime scene data are “reliable.”

“We have an obligation, where the stakes couldn’t be higher” to review the narrative of government’s data and test it, Watkins said. “Otherwise, mistakes are made at trial.”

The judge is not overtly siding with the prosecution but is also making zero effort to control them. He gives the impression that he just wants to get this over with. He wishes both sides would just make clear arguments instead of dancing around the issues. However, he does not use a firm tone of voice against the government, ever. He seems to be going through the motions of the appearance of a trial, but like it’s a formality.

So basically, nothing new to report regarding the Tsarnaev proceedings because nothing can go forward until the judge gets tough. The defense is still desperately explaining that under the current situation there is no way they can be ready for trial and therefore, there is no way that Tsarnaev can get a fair trial.

Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. said that he will give lawyers more time to submit arguments over whether the trial should be relocated to Washington, DC. However, this move seems unlikely since O’Toole declared mid-September as the target for jury summons.

Tsarnaev Defense Thwarted

http://newtrendmag.org/ntma1563.htm

“In this type of case it should be cut and dry. Why the dance?” read a tweet commenting on ongoing arguments between government prosecutors and the defense attorneys representing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev during the latest status hearing for Tsarnaev on Thursday, August 14.

The first item under discussion was leaks to the media, which unfairly present the defendant as guilty before trial. This has been an ongoing problem, which the defense has repeatedly asked the judge to do something about. Once again, Judge O’Toole claimed that “this concern is taken to heart” but denied the Tsarnaev motion to seek relief, other than advising government officials not to talk to the media. He once again refused to create consequences.

Next, the “firewall” issue came up. An FBI agent is monitoring all conversations during prison visits between Tsarnaev, his sisters, and his attorneys. The defense has repeatedly stated that they cannot speak freely in front of the FBI, given that the FBI is part of the prosecution team and this violates client-attorney privilege. However, the judge felt “there is prudence in monitoring some way.” He ordered the government to keep a log of communications but not content, for example, “spoke to warden.” He saw no reason for further relief.

Regarding the defense request for further discovery regarding the murder of Ibrahim Todashev,” whose alleged confession that he and Tamerlan Tsarnaev had committed a triple murder of some drug dealers in Waltham, Massachusetts, was written into the legal case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as if it were fact, the judge said he had reviewed the classified government document this claim was based on “in camera” and he saw no reason to compel further discovery in order to allow the defense to question it. Once again we are seeing the use of secret evidence that the defense cannot see, in a prosecution of a Muslim.

Next, the defense complained that the government is demanding to know who the defense will call as witnesses during the penalty phase of the trial. They said revealing their arguments against the death penalty before their client has even gone to trial would “chill the defense.” They complained that although the prosecution handed over a 108 page list of expert witnesses they might call on during the trial along with their biographies, the defense feels entitled to more specific information on what the government’s case against Tsarnaev will be. They are still completely “in the dark” about the government’s position, they said, beyond the media leaks they have come across on TV. Tsarnaev’s defense is asking the judge to compel the government to deliver "more complete disclosure."

“We are ‘mystified’ as to what evidence the defense is looking for,” claimed US attorney Weinreb most cynically. “We've given them everything we have!”

At the same time the government is claiming that the defense has not handed over any information to them. The defense retorted, “We don’t have any information other than what the government gave us!” Tsarnaev’s attorneys complained that the government has access to a worldwide network of investigators while the defense has nothing to work with other than the 6-7 terabytes of data that the government handed over: thousands of hours of audio and video recordings, tens of thousands of photographs, every email Tsarnaev ever sent, as well as forensic evidence such as fingerprints, DNA, bullet casings, test results, witness injuries and the like. However this information is neither labeled nor indexed in any way that the information can be searched easily, nor matched with each other; for example photos are not in the same file as the description of what expert witnesseses plan to say about the photos. So the defense has no idea what point the government is trying to make, and would have to click on literally millions of links trying to piece together this information. 

The amount of evidence given to us from the government is "massive and disorganized... breath taking!” stated the defense. They want more time to sort through all this madness. Similar tactics of overwhelming the court with huge amounts of irrelevant information have been used against many other Muslim defendants: for example if they ever watched a video of a beheading online, this video would be used as “evidence” against them, even though realistically, who knows what their opinion of the video actually was?

The government accused the defense of “trial by ambush” and insisted that the defense lay down all their cards on the table regarding their anti-death penalty arguments.  “We will have no opportunity to prepare our witnesses. The result will be that the jury will only be hearing one side of this case.” The defense responded, “It is a weightier discussion to take a life than to spare it. We have more rights to discovery than the government.” The judge will consider the matter.

“The fact that they threw in the bathtub and the bathwater doesn’t excuse not disclosing their expert witness opinion summaries.” It will take months, if not years, even if all three defense lawyers work to figure out which files are interesting. “It’s too important to put a secretary on it.”

The defense complained that in the past, the FBI has mismatched fingerprints and photographic evidence. They need more information about how the evidence was collected, before trial, to determine if the evidence is “reliable.” The defense wants the government to “contextualize” the data, saying “it’s almost a random process.” 

O’Toole refused to rule on this issue immediately. The change of venue request is to be addressed orally next week, while mid-September is the target for jury summons. 

In short, Tsarnaev’s legal proceedings are “at a standstill” since O’Toole refuses to compel the government to play fair.

FBI Monitoring Prison Visits of Defense attorney with Marathon Bombing Suspect

A pre-trial hearing for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev took place on June 18, 2014. US Attorney Carmen Ortiz was front row in the audience. Ortiz has ambitions to be governor and is no doubt using this terrorism prosecution as a personal career move.

As they have done in every hearing, defense lawyers requested the removal of Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) restrictions on their client, who is being kept in total lockdown. Lawyers have been complaining that they are unable to meet with Tsarnaev without the presence of an FBI officer in the room. During the last hearing on April 24, Judge O'Toole agreed with the defense that there is no national security reason why an FBI officer needs to be present and felt that the prison security should suffice. Although prosecutors insist that the FBI officer present is not going to be a witness at the trial, defense attorneys reported that the FBI officer was taking notes. The judge refused to remove SAMs and told the government they should use an out-of-state FBI agent during prison visits. The Constitutional protection of attorney-client privilege clearly does not apply especially when the defendant is a Muslim.

The defense complained about media leaks. Instead of handing over evidence to the defense, the government is working with the media. FBI agents were interviewed for TV documentaries that aired on National Geographic and 60 Minutes commemorating the one year anniversary of the bombing. These reports, which conflict each other in many ways, served to influence the minds of the public regarding guilt, long before trial. Defense attorneys complained that it is only on TV that they are learning what the prosecution's case is. Judge O'Toole admonished the government for participating in media interviews, calling it "unwise," but refused to penalize them in any way.

Throughout the proceedings, the defense has been muzzled. Attorneys have been warned against making any statements to media or even talking to friends and supporters about the case. Previously, government prosecutors brought up the possibility that defense attorneys might pass along messages from Tsarnaev to his "following" - very similar to the situation with Shaykh Omar Abdul Rahman's attorney, Lynne Stewart, who was imprisoned in retaliation for making statements to the press regarding statements her client made, except that Tsarnaev is not a political or religious leader with any following other than people following his case.

Tsarnaev cannot read any of his mail without a lawyer present and has been advised not to answer any of his mail. Likewise, his family cannot speak to the media about their belief in their son's innocence, lest they be accused of "passing along messages."

The only good thing coming out of this hearing is that the government's emotional tactic of accusing Tsarnaev of "betraying America" was struck down.

"I agree with the defense position that it was unduly prejudicial," O'Toole said, calling this type of charge "obnoxious."

However the prosecution will continue to use "He was comforting our enemies" as an argument for motive in the trial. It appears that pushing the issue of Tsarnaev's interest in Islamic causes will be central to their case. This would imply that they lack evidence, or that the evidence they have would not make the government look good. So far, they have swamped the defense with millions of pages of inconclusive, grainy photographs and some computer files showing that Tsarnaev watched jihad-related material on his laptop, but they have refused to hand over tangible evidence like the GPS of the vehicle that was used to flee from police the night Tamerlan Tsarnaev was killed.

The prosecution asked the judge to demand that the defense supply them the name of their witnesses that they would use to counter the government expert witness' testimony on the Islamic nature of the Boston Marathon bombing. Presumably the government "expert witness" will be the laughingstock, Evan "Saddam is allied with al-Qaeda" Kohlmann, who has already been testifying in front of Congress about Tsarnaev's Islamic motivations long before he has even been found guilty. Defense attorney Judy Clarke argued that this is not standard practice, and according to the Fifth Amendment, they are not required to disclose this type of information to the prosecution at this point in the proceedings. O'Toole delayed making a decision.

US prosecutors say they will not use statements Tsarnaev made during his hospital bed FBI interrogation before his Miranda rights were read, during the guilt/innocence part of the trial but may bring it up for the sentencing part. Defense wants the evidence of these statements to be suppressed. O'Toole delayed the decision for mid-trial.

Tsarnaev's next status hearing is scheduled for August 14. 

2014-06-21
NewTrendMag.org

Tsarnaev and Friends: Boston Legal Updates

TMO 

Judge Strikes Down “Betraying America” Charge as Inflammatory

US District Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. at the John Joseph Moakley Courthouse.

A pre-trial hearing for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev took place on June 18, 2014. For the most part, there has been no progress in the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev case. SAMs are still in place, including an FBI agent taking notes on every prison visit involving attorneys and family together. At the same time the US government has not yet handed over the GPS of the Tsarnaev vehicle involved in the police chase to the defense. The government is still insisting on total control over the narrative that gets released to the public. The judge declined to penalize the government over media leaks.

However, Judge O’Toole did step in once, telling the US prosecutors that their charge of “Betraying America” was “obnoxious.”

“I agree with the defense position that it was unduly prejudicial,” O’Toole said.

Nevertheless, the prosecution will continue to use “He was comforting our enemies” as their main argument in the trial. It appears that pushing the issue of Tsarnaev’s interest in Islamic causes will be central to their case of explaining his motive, which will be the core of the government case for death penalty.

Azamat Tazhayakov Rejects Plea Deal

Tazhayakov’s lawyer, Matthew Myers, told reporters after a pretrial hearing on June 23, 2014 that prosecutors offered him a deal to plead to reduced charges but he turned it down. Myers would not disclose the terms of the offer.

“He knows he’s not guilty,” Myers said of Tazhayakov. “He’s confident.”

Nicholas Wooldridge, another lawyer representing Tazhayakov, said the defense is hopeful of finding an impartial jury.

“Even the average juror in Boston will be shocked by the lack of evidence,” he said.

At least 600 potential jurors for Tazhayakov’s case will be given screening questionnaires to fill out, in a defense attempt to weed out people with anti-Muslim prejudice and other factors. The final version of the questionnaire will be agreed upon by both sides.

Defense lawyers argued Monday that Tazhayakov and many other university students have been unfairly targeted because of guilt by association.

Federal prosecutors are facing the possibility that if the statements he made to the FBI while detained but not quite arrested were a result of intimidation, they could be thrown out of court and the entire case could be dismissed.

Khairullozhon Matanov Denied Bail

Judge Marianne Bowler arrived ten minutes late and then began a hearing for a young man from Kyrgyzstan on June 23, 2014 at 2:30pm with the words: “Well, Mr. Hayden, we are here at your request.”
Hayden’s client, Khair Matanov was the Quincy cab driver and friend of the Tsarnaevs who is accused of lying to the government about whether he drove his friends to the restaurant or if he met them at the restaurant.

At the last hearing, his government appointed attorney said “no contest” to incarceration due to his client being jobless and having nowhere to go. However, since more than one person offered their home to Matanov the lawyer actually then  went out of his way to look into the possibility. Hayden even found a job lead for the young man.

“Usually people have friends or family in the area, but [Matanov] didn’t have that resource, so it was up to me,” Hayden said.

Hayden argued that his client cooperated with FBI over extended period and met with them five times. The government watched his every move for one year and still haven’t found him doing anything terrorism related.

The government was forced to concede that Matanov is not “dangerous.” This is huge. The government only argued that he was a flight risk because he had so many relatives overseas. They further argued that because he worked 15-18 hours a day and sent all his money to his family, including paying for his brother’s heart surgery, this means there are many people who owe him a favor and would therefore harbor him. On this basis, Judge Bowler ruled in favor of his further detainment as a flight risk.

Even though bail was denied, this hearing was a very successful maneuver because it presented the defense with an opportunity to clarify in more detail about the money wire transfers and phones and the defense alibis. In the previous hearing, the FBI testimony dominated, but in this hearing, the defense did most of the talking. Khair’s alibi sounds reasonable. He sent money under a false name for tax purposes, but the money was earned legally. He sent $6500 to his grandfather, and even helped out a friend in Virginia who had lost his job.

To which Bowler responded, “before or after tax?” regarding the $71,000 total.

Hayden clarified beyond the shadow of a doubt that the government was was making innuendos regarding the money transfers being related to terrorism.

Hayden then argued that Matanov does not deserve to be locked up in solitary confinement for selling cell phones to Russia. Matanov regularly sold cell phones to Russia. The government admitted that the cell phones were not used for any terrorism related activity.

Matanov was the first person to go to the police to identify the Tsarnaevs after the FBI sent out their alert, according to the defense.

Judge Humiliated During Tsarnaev Hearing

TMO 

On April 16, 2014 TMO attended a status hearing for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 20, who faces a 30-count federal indictment for his alleged role in the Boston marathon bombings. Tsarnaev was not present in the courtroom, nor were his family members. The 1½-hour hearing took place before Judge George O’Toole. The US government was represented by Aloke Chakravarty, Nadine Pellegrini, and William Weinreb while only two of Tsarnaev’s lawyers were present: Miriam Conrad and David Bruck, the death penalty specialist recently appointed to the team. US District Attorney Carmen Ortiz was in the courtroom.

“Judge O’Toole wasted no time announcing his decisions on two of the motions before the court. Without hearing any arguments, he matter-of-factly denied the government’s motion for a protective order barring Tsarnaev from viewing the autopsy photos of the four people killed in the bombing and its aftermath. He also denied, without prejudice, a defense motion to dismiss several counts of the indictment. The defense team had argued that the charges were redundant and duplicative. ‘I think it’s premature,’ Judge O’Toole explained, adding that the motion could be revisited at the time of the trial,” reports Victoria Liberty of the Freedom Bulletin.

The first discussion topic was Tsarnaev’s visitation rights under SAMs (Special Administrative Measures).

Attorney Bruck requested SAMs be vacated. He complained that  Tsarnaev’s legal team is not allowed to speak with him without an FBI officer present, which creates a problem since the FBI is on the prosecution team. This results in “fearful conversation” with family members and denies lawyers the ability to see the “story of the family.”

US Attorney Pelligrini countered that the SAMs have already been modified. There are now 12 people who have permission to visit Tsarnaev, including lawyers, paralegals and investigators. Pelligrini said the defense is “unable to control what the defendant says.”

“What’s quite clear is the defendant felt clear to say whatever he wanted, despite the presence of the FBI investigator.”

Bruck said there is no national security reason to allow an FBI agent to listen in on family conversations. The FBI will spin anything said.

They were both referring to a recent incident when Tsarnaev joked to his sister about the SAMs restrictions, making light of the uncomfortable situation. The FBI leaked to the media that he was making inappropriate statements that demonstrated his lack of remorse for his crime.

“At least we want the FBI agent who’s listening in on these conversations not to pass information to the prosecution,” argued Bruck.

The prosecution argued that Tsarnaev can always talk to lawyers freely, but when his sisters are there it is a social visit that warrants FBI monitoring. This makes very little sense from an investigative standpoint. The FBI presence can only make the Tsarnaevs nervous about talking. If the FBI wanted information they would leave them alone with a recording device.

The government insisted that Tsarnaev will “pass messages” to the public if they let him talk. “Information is being transmitted!” Pelligrini warned.

Tsarnaev had been imprisoned without incident until Attorney General Eric Holder, alarmed by the thousands of letters Tsarnaev received supporting his innocence, called for restrictions on Tsarnaev, claiming there was “substantial risk” that his “communications or contacts with persons could result in death or serious bodily injury” to others, insinuating that he had “followers” that would commit violence at his command.

Judge O’Toole sided with the defense. He said the normal prison visitor screening and security measures were sufficient for public safety. He felt the defense is being limited in their ability to defend their client by the FBI presence during their meetings. He ruled that since family visits are only allowed with a lawyer present, they should be considered legal visits exempt from monitoring and not as social visits, since understanding family dynamics is relevant to the defense.

“If the security interest is higher than the investigative interest, then a party other than the prosecution should be present,” said O’Toole. “The defense team ought to have an opportunity to have a 2 or 3 way conversation among siblings. I don’t think the safety, security issue looms very large.”

The government rather insolently retorted that the Warden is able to restrict visits even without SAMs.

“Is the court ordering the BOP to not impose restrictions?” Weinreb seemed to dare the judge.

Weinreb openly undermined the judge’s authority, telling him if you order this, we will go around you. The prosecution seemed to be talking to the judge like an employee!

Judge O’Toole submitted to government pressure, conceding to allow in a BOP lawyer to argue against reducing prison restrictions before he made a decision in two weeks.

Next, the lawyers moved on to discovery disputes.

Defense Attorney Miriam Conrad stated that “as a result of government failure to meet discovery deadlines, we are now at a disadvantage.”

Conrad said the government is not following normal protocol to respond within two weeks to discovery requests and the defense had not received certain long requested documents until Friday last week.

“We have had no opportunity to submit a response,” she said.

Conrad stated that the defense still does not have the Todashev interview materials, and insisted that they are entitled to know what he said during the FBI interview.

The government says the information should not be public.

“But they have leaked so much to the public already,” Conrad argued.

Weinreb said the government has no legal obligation to produce the requested materials, although they agreed to voluntarily provide some information.

The defense wants information on how Tamerlan “slit the neck of 3 helpless people,” Bruck explained, because, “This case is very much a story about a family and the relationships between them.”
“Todashev implicated himself and Tamerlan in the Waltham murders, not our client. It’s not clear if Dzhokhar knew of the crime,” stated Conrad.

Weinreb said Todashev’s interview is not related to this case and “has no relevance.” This is curious since it was the prosecution that added the alleged confession into the court documents in the first place.

Now he says Tamerlan’s influence on Dzhokhar “relates to what he knew, not what happened.”

In court papers, Dzhokhar’s lawyers argued that Tamerlan “was an all-powerful force who could not be ignored or disobeyed.”

Weinreb responded that there is no indication that Dzhokhar knew of Tamerlan’s murderousness, and that is all that is relevant.

O’Toole had denied the request in November for Todashev documents on the grounds that law enforcement privilege protects disclosure of files in an ongoing investigation. Now that the FBI has issued a report clearing itself of any wrongdoing regarding the killing of a potential witness, O’Toole said he would ponder the defense request for the Todashev statement after viewing it privately, “in camera.”

The ACLU is currently suing the FBI and US District Attorney Carmen Ortiz over the FBI murder of Todashev. The ACLU of Massachusetts is calling for state Attorney General Martha Coakley to conduct her own independent investigation into Massachusetts law enforcement’s involvement in the Todashev shooting in the name of transparency and accountability.

The defense has argued that the FBI had pressured Tamerlan to become an informant. Could Todashev have had damaging information about links between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and the FBI? A genuine investigation would reveal information about the FBI that could hurt the case for the prosecution.

“While some of this circle of friends in Florida, like Todashev, faced pressure to confess to participating in or having knowledge of the Waltham crime, others, according to CAIR’s Shibly, have been told that if they want to be left alone and not deported, they need to become informants. He says several of those harassed have opted to return to Russia rather than become spies for the FBI in Florida’s Muslim community,” reports firedoglake.

I have to assume the defense is aware that Tamerlan probably didn’t commit the triple murder in Waltham – one of the victims was his best friend. An investigative journalist for WBUR told TMO she suspects the crime was related to a local drug ring.

However, for the sake of argument involving requesting documents related to Todashev, the defense appears to accept the government story. They’ve also suggested that Tamerlan suffered from mental illness, saying his “paranoia and distress” were fueled by an FBI attempt to recruit him as an informant to report on the Chechen and Muslim communities in Boston.

“We base this on information from our client’s family and other sources that the FBI made more than one visit to talk with (Tamerlan’s parents) and Tamerlan, questioned Tamerlan about his internet searches, and asked him to be an informant,” the defense motion states.

The government denies the allegation.

Defense lawyers want to see FBI documents to confirm their allegation. Naturally, the government is not cooperating.

Next, the defense argued for access to lab reports and other materials. The government is delaying or refusing to provide information about its mental/physical examinations of Tsarnaev and other investigations including computer searches.

“How can prosecutors argue with a straight face that computer or phone searches aren’t material to the Tsarnaev case? I don’t know how a search of a computer and what they revealed is anything other than an examination under rules of discovery!” Conrad argued.

“They thought it was material to search 12 computers. If we have to conduct our own studies of hard drives it will take longer and be very expensive.”

Obviously whoever has Tsarnaev’s debit card, computer and cell phone information can easily figure out where he was and what he was doing before, after and during the marathon.

Aloke Chakravarty, who was the lead prosecutor in the case against Tarek Mehanna, whose trial was also overseen by O’Toole, now argues that evidence from government computer searches isn’t relevant to Tsarnaev. But at Mehanna’s trial he heavily relied on chat messages and computer files to make the case for the prosecution. If the government doesn’t want to reveal computer and chat records now, this would imply that the information obtained from Tsarnaev’s computer/phone might be more useful for the defense than for the prosecution.

When the defense asked for any information obtained under secret surveillance programs, the prosecution said they will not reveal this information, unless they plan to use it at trial.

As she asked for FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) information, such as intelligence that the Russian government had shared about Tamerlan and his radical leanings, Conrad commented, “I have been puzzled all along by the government’s rather opaque responses to our requests for FISA notice, and I continue to be puzzled.”

Conrad argued, mentioning the Patriot Act: “First the government says they do not intend to use FISA obtained evidence, but there are indications of Homeland Security surveillance. Then the government takes the position that we are not entitled to notice their data mining. The defense has a right to challenge how information was obtained and to challenge admissibility.”

The defense may move to suppress evidence gleaned from computer searches on the grounds that the searches exceeded the scope of the warrant. Any such motions are due on May 7th.

Chakravarty stated, “The government doesn’t want to be in a position of foreclosure just because the defense provoked a response. We can put to rest right now whether there is any secret evidence. There isn’t.”

O’Toole said that because the government said it doesn’t plan to use any surveillance material at trial, there is nothing for him to rule on. He denied the defense motion to obtain this information. Prosecutors will have to give proper notice if they plan to use any evidence, and if they don’t, they can’t.

O’Toole says he plans to discuss expert witness disclosures at the next hearing on June 18. He chuckled aloud to himself that this is no ordinary case.

Dzokhar Tsarnaev is scheduled to be tried on November 3.

Conrad expressed doubts that the defense could be ready by that date, given the government stalling to avoid handing over documents.

“I’ll make you a believer,” said O’Toole, who intends to stick to the schedule no matter what.

I sincerely hope this trial will proceed with a fact-based format rather than the tactics that Miriam Ortiz and her employees have previously used, basically overwhelming the jury with irrelevant, unsubstantial, prejudicial, and downright false evidence.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Standing Tall Despite Execution Threat

 TMO 

Trial Scheduled for November, No Plea Bargain in Sight

Artist’s rendering of an earlier Tsarnaev appearance in court.

“Attorney General Eric Holder’s January 30th announcement authorizing Federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty for Tsarnaev (if convicted), does not appear to have alarmed attorney’s for the accused in any way: In fact, they now appear wholly intent on taking the case to trial,” reports blogger B. Blake.

“This is in stark contrast to virtually all of death penalty lawyer Judy Clarke’s previous cases, none of which have ever proceeded to the trial stage. For example, Jared Lee Loughner, Eric Rudolf and bomber Ted Kaczynski all accepted plea deals in their efforts to avoid a trial and face possible execution.

The courtroom was packed on February 12, 2014 for the latest status hearing for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, which lasted about 30 minutes. Several Boston Marathon bombing victims were in attendance, organized by lead prosecutor Carmen Ortiz, who was reportedly very “friendly and familiar with them.” The victims were kept in a separate room from the public before the hearing. MIT Police Chief John DiFava was there, claiming to represent MIT Officer Sean Collier, who was allegedly killed by the Tsarnaev brothers. DiFava is pushing for the death penalty. Many Tsarnaev supporters and media skeptics were also in attendance, as well as the usual throng of journalists.

The crowded courtroom provided witnesses a lively debate that demonstrated that the government might be overconfident about their sure win. While the prosecution talked, balked and stuttered in boring circles, defense attorneys Judy Clark and Miriam Conrad were on point and downright entertaining. Prosecutors had not heeded Judge O’Toole’s order from the last hearing to start cooperating with discovery. This naturally cast doubt upon the validity of the prosecution’s case against Tsarnaev.

The issues at hand were the trial schedule and discovery. The defense asked for a September 2015 trial date in order to have enough time to prepare, in light of ongoing government obstructions of discovery, while the prosecution wanted to rush through the legal proceedings and go straight to the penalty phase. On the surface, O’Toole appeared to side with the prosecution, setting a November 2014 trial date, saying, “I think it is appropriate to do some scheduling.”

“The judge probably knows full well that 11/3/14 isn’t a realistic trial date but set it in part to keep things moving along,” tweeted Attorney David Frank, managing editor of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

Judy Clarke explained to the judge, “I understand the court’s desire to move this along but I don’t see us identifying experts by the time we go to trial.” She pointed out that death penalty trials are broken into two parts: a liability phase and a punishment phase.

US Attorney Aloke Chakravarty answered sourly, “Let’s not kid ourselves. The issue here is going to be in the penalty phase.”

This degree of prosecutorial arrogance did not come across well. If Tsarnaev is convicted it will be the same jury that will determine if he will live or die.

“I considered Chakravarty’s comment to be totally inappropriate,” stated a court observer named Jane.

Frank tweeted, “If judge forces Tsarnaev to trial before his lawyers are ready, the judge would be creating a whopper of a legal issue on appeal if convicted.”

Clarke complained that they cannot go forward with the case because the government has not been complying with requests for evidence. Defense attorney Miriam Conrad pointed out that the government is supposed to respond to a request within two weeks.

“They said they’d get back to us after the holidays. Apparently their definition of ‘the holidays’ includes Martin Luther King Day!” Ms. Conrad then went on to say that she had been unaware that “the holidays” extended nearly up until President’s Day!

“Chakravarty’s excuse for the delay in providing access to discovery to the defense was that the defense had not been ‘specific’ in regards to what items of evidence they wished to have access to,” reported Jane.

Tsarnaev’s defense team said they had never experienced anything like this.

“We got radio silence from December 18 to February 7,” Conrad said. “With that kind of response, I don’t know how we could possibly move forward.”

“Discovery in this case has been way outside the norm in my experience,” complained Clarke, who has taken on many capital cases.

“We’re really having a hard time getting access to information. Discovery is not completed. It has been a laborious process… slow and cumbersome. When we ask for something they say narrow it down. We do, and then it’s not enough… We can’t get forensic reports. We have no idea where they are going.”

The government has handed over millions of pages of electronic files, but these are still not even labeled, let alone searchable, despite previous court orders. Additionally, the defense is asking for information on how this evidence was gathered.

The FBI is holding some 2,000 pieces of physical evidence in Quantico, Virginia and two other locations. Chakravarty claimed that the defense has had the opportunity to review this evidence, but Clarke responded that she has a “slightly different view” of where the evidence is and how it can be obtained. The FBI keeps giving them the runaround.

“It’s not us that’s dragging our feet, we’re really struggling to get access… We’ve had a little bit of a sluggish shall I say start to reviewing physical evidence.”

Clarke said that defense attorneys have repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to schedule an appointment with the FBI to view these pieces of evidence and have no idea what they are. “As far as we know, the evidence is 2,000 BBs.”

She also pointed out the hardship of traveling back and forth each time. She flew in from San Diego for this hearing. She is also having trouble meeting family in Russia because of the Olympics.

“There’s just a tremendous amount of logistical hurdles,” she said.

The judge asked Chakravarty if he was going to start supplying the defense with some actual information. The prosecuting attorney stammered and stalled for at least a full minute before agreeing.
Judy Clarke quipped to the judge: “You have a black robe and it took you that long to get an answer from the government on discovery. Imagine what we are going through.”

“This is undoubtedly going to be a lengthy trial,” O’Toole said. He warned the prosecution that their lack of cooperation could endanger the trial schedule and instructed them to “avoid unnecessary accumulation of even relevant evidence.” He ordered the government to supply a list of evidence by the end of the week.

Unfortunately for reporters and the public, the evidence files will be sealed. Likewise, the court documents filed on February 11 were sealed.

“Outside the courthouse, some supporters of Tsarnaev said they still believe the teen is innocent,” reported Michele McPhee from ABC. One woman, Lisa Figueroa, 36, drove to the federal courthouse in South Boston from New York City to show her support.

“They won’t let him write letters which is wrong,’’ Figueroa said. “I’m not one of these girls who thinks he is a rock star. He’s accused of terrorism. It’s serious. I just think he could be my little brother.”
Kevin, 31, of Boston told TMO he believes Dzhokhar was set up by the government.

A woman who was a bystander at the marathon in front of the forum said she witnessed them remove a mailbox to hide evidence. Even a tree was uprooted from the crime scene.  Some believe the angular momentum of the shrapnel would help narrow down where in the crowd the explosion came from. The witness mentioned that the smoke smelled like sulphur or rotten eggs. It did not smell like fireworks.

“It’s not American for a suspect to go from isolation to execution without ever getting to explain his side of the story,” another bystander told reporters, questioning the plausibility of many of the government accusations.

“I left the courthouse today feeling a lot more positive than I have done in a long time.” said Jane. “There is no way the prosecution is going to be allowed to continue their prevarication.”

Several Tsarnaev supporters told TMO that their mail is being returned, opened.