The Department of Justice says there was reasonable evidence to sentence the Boston Marathon bomber to death. But the defense says he was not granted a fair trial, citing withheld information.
By Lauren Berryman
The U.S. Supreme Court needs to decide the question of whether the Boston Marathon bomber received a fair trial and deserves the death penalty.
The justices heard oral arguments Wednesday from a Department of Justice lawyer and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s attorney about whether the Court of Appeals was right to vacate the bomber’s death penalty punishment because of information withheld from the original trial.
“They agreed he was guilty,” Justice Stephen Breyer said. “Their only claim was don’t give me the death penalty because it was my brother who was the moving force.”
On April 15, 2013, Dzhokhar and his older brother, Tamerlan, detonated two pressure cooker bombs near the Boston Marathon’s finish line, killing three and injuring more than 260 others.
Tamerlan died four days later, following a police encounter. Eight years later, the courts are still deciding the fate of the surviving brother, Dzhokhar.
The district court sentenced Dzhokhar to death in 2015. While the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of the counts, it overturned Dzhokhar’s death sentence, saying there were errors made in the original trial. Now, the Department of Justice is calling for the Supreme Court to reinstate the district court’s original sentence, garnering support from both President Joe Biden and former President Trump.
Ginger Anders, the attorney representing Dzhokhar, said the district court committed legal error by failing to discuss the extent to which Tamerlan influenced Dzhokhar, who was 19 years old at the time.
“The defense’s entire argument was that Dzhokhar was less culpable because Tamerlan indoctrinated him and then led the bombings,” Anders told the Supreme Court justices. By withholding information about Tamerlan from jurors, she said the court violated the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.
Eric Feigin, the Deputy Solicitor General, said discussion of Tamerlan’s possible involvement in the killings of three drug dealers in 2011 — known as the Waltham killings — was irrelevant information for district court jurors to consider.
But Justice Elena Kagan raised questions about why the judge did not let the jurors decide the information’s relevance themselves.
“It’s the job of the jury, isn’t it, to decide on the reliability of the evidence?” Kagan asked Feigin. “To decide whether it’s strong evidence or weak evidence that Tamerlan in fact played a leading role in those other gruesome murders?”
Feigin responded that the two crimes were unrelated. “That is a far cry from a sophisticated public spectacle that required reading directions in a jihadist magazine on how to build and construct bombs and deliberately placing them at the finish line of the Boston Marathon” he said.
But Anders held firm that Dzhokhar’s actions and ideologies were the product of his brother’s influence.
“Tamerlan had irrevocably committed himself to violent jihad that would have had a profound effect on Dzhokhar who was already enthralled to his brother,” Anders said, “and, therefore, would have felt intense pressure to follow Tamerlan’s chosen path and to accept extremist violence as justified.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch asked Anders how Tamerlan’s involvement in the three previous murders is relevant since it is not confirmed that he led the murders, which remain unsolved.
“There was corroborating evidence,” Anders said, “that suggested a leadership role here…Tamerlan was the one who steeped in jihadist materials. Tamerlan was the one who knew Brendan Mess,” one of the victims in the Waltham killings.
Some Boston Marathon bombing survivors said they have their own opinions on the case but hope a final decision comes soon.
Marc Fucarile, 42, of Boston lost his right leg, acquired burns and went into a coma as a result of the bombings. He said in an interview Wednesday that basic actions, such as cooking, using the restroom and showering, are challenging and his new reality.
“I think we need to send a message that this is what’s going to happen if you decide to be a terrorist and blow up innocent people in America,” Fucarile said. “I think we should send the death penalty.”
Others, like Dina Windle, 55, hope for a different outcome. Windle is the vice chair at Journey of Hope, which works with victims of trauma, families of victims and people exonerated from death row aiming to abolish the death penalty.
“It’s not healing,” Windle said about the death penalty. “For many of us, it was about forgiveness. Forgiveness is that freedom.”
The justices will decide the case, United States v. Tsarnaev, early next year.
Lauren Berryman 