United States v. Tsarnaev

Anonymous asked: When is Azamat being sentenced? Next week?

October 16.

Anonymous asked: "The government would like the defendant present during the pre trial conference and jury selection" Why do you think the Govt. would like J. to be there? Do they want the victims to see him shackled and chained or do they want more media coverage? What's the point other than more theatrics?

inktablet:

patsysvodka:

That is an excellent question, I’ve been thinking about this myself. If the government has a strong case like I think they do then what is the purpose to bring him out again, at least for the pre trial hearing. I think he should be there for jury selection, the judge made the point that Whitey Bulger was present for his jury selection, so why shouldn’t Tsarnaev be present? Bruck’s response to the governments request was weird though. More and more I think they are having major problems communicating with their client.

I think Weinreb also said that he wanted Tsarnaev there so if he (Dzhokhar) had any issues with his case he could go on the record in stating them now, rather than post-trial. And also that if D doesn’t want to be involved in his case, he should state to the court on the record that he is choosing this right in the event of appeals.

Anonymous asked: If Bruck wants to know what motivated DzT, why doesn't he ask him? The more I think about his arguments as to having to take considerable time to learn why this happened, the more intellectually thread bare they seem. The best source is available to Bruck every day at a moments notice.

Thank you! That was such a bizarre statement from Bruck, I’m really wondering what the hell they are dealing with? Is this just another stalling tactic or what?

Anonymous asked: "The government would like the defendant present during the pre trial conference and jury selection" Why do you think the Govt. would like J. to be there? Do they want the victims to see him shackled and chained or do they want more media coverage? What's the point other than more theatrics?

That is an excellent question, I’ve been thinking about this myself. If the government has a strong case like I think they do then what is the purpose to bring him out again, at least for the pre trial hearing. I think he should be there for jury selection, the judge made the point that Whitey Bulger was present for his jury selection, so why shouldn’t Tsarnaev be present? Bruck’s response to the governments request was weird though. More and more I think they are having major problems communicating with their client.

Anonymous asked: Hi Pats, hope you haven't been toooo bombarded with asks today! What was your impression of the courtroom atmosphere? A lo t of tension? What do you think of O'Toole?

The courtroom is very large with these crazy red flowers painted along the edges, those need to go! You could definitely feel the tension between opposing council for obvious reasons, but the press were havin’ a grand old time, they all know each other and there was a lot of chit chat between them before the hearing. Gotta give it to them, this is not easy to report live. It moves so fast and you have to write one thing down while listening to the next thing being discussed. There was a woman sitting on the bench behind the defense who seemed to have been crying at some point. I didn’t recognize her, coulda been allergies, but she seemed upset.

Lol Judge O’Toole. Well he’s probably been at this for so long that he doesn’t care anymore, so I’ll be outraged for him. The courtroom sketch that I’ve seen of him makes him look at least 15 years older and substantially heavier. He’s not a bad looking guy, I could barely hear what he was saying though, he speaks low and quickly. He’s definitely a no nonsense kinda guy.

The US Marshals were all very nice and welcoming to everyone, it was a very pleasant atmosphere considering the reason we were all there.

Oh my, I must be exhausted from today’s events - pretty sure I completely misinterpreted an anon earlier. My revised response is you’re welcome!

Anonymous asked: Another thing that caught my attention is that Bruck continuously mentions the defense's ongoing inquiry as to "why" it occurred. Tellingly, he never mentions the quintessential question in all murder mysteries, "whodunnit." Because he and every other player in the courtroom, including the Judge, knows the answer to that.

^^^

Status hearing September 18, 2014

Here’s what I jotted down today at the status hearing. I tried to write down as much as I could, but this is definitely not word for word or the entirety of the hearing so consider that and I hope this fills in some of the holes left from the tweets today. I could barely hear the Judge, but the tweets cover his input and actions thoroughly.


Weinreb Prosecution

The defense is not gathering things last minute, they have had material to be used for exhibits. The government needs this to strategize, make decisions about witnesses and exhibits.

Bruck Defense

We are so far from having this case prepared. We know where we’re going, but we don’t have the case. No objection to turn over anything material to the prosecution. We don’t have the outline of the case. Our clients entire life has been seized by the government, truckloads of stuff, his entire life and family. The contents of his dorm room, contents of his friends apartment. We have been hard at work halfway around the world. We are way behind on the process of discovery. We don’t intend to use whatever we have, we’re not at that point.

Weinreb Prosecution

Govt needs affirmative witness list. Defense has only produced one expert, no summary has been produced. The social worker. The defense argument is that they don’t have to produce until the day before trial. At this point defense knows mitigating factors. We need to know what they are to fulfill obligations to rebut.

Bruck Defense

No court has asked for mitigating factors prior to the jury questionnaire. They don’t need it or are entitled to it. We are still receiving automatic discovery including a partial analysis of the defendants computer. We have no idea when is was completed, it was received in the last couple of weeks. We are trying to find out what government allegations will be. Govt has focused only on Jahar as if he self radicalized by himself with no context. That’s their strategy. The defense still doesn’t know about Tamerlan’s computer analysis. Here is discovery we don’t have regarding critical issues in the case. 177 FBI scientists and technicians have worked on this case. We have to know how to respond. Experts, witnesses etc. this work is compressed into 6 weeks. We are faced with a massive array, 7.5 terra bites of electronic discovery. What we have to guide us is the collective experience of courts in this country. 119 capital trials in the last decade, this case is half the median of those cases. We are so far behind, there has been just too much to do. This is a case that is atypical. Other cases have taken four or five years. We have done our best to meet this trial date, it cannot be done. We are part of the process, to get to the bottom of this, and find out why. Reasons to ensure both have time to do our job. If the govt had not asked for death, this case would have been over by now.

Weinreb Prosecution

However much time you are given is your budget of time. This is a reasonable amount of time. Allowing more time will not improve understanding of the case. Govt provided forensic discovery of computers, they fault us for not doing analysis of Jahar’s computer. They were free to do FTK analysis on their own. FTK analysis, a narrative representation about what the agent would say about the evidence. The results of their exam. The government is not trying to prove Dzhokhar self radicalized alone. Tamerlan is not on trial. The govt is not going to do the same analysis on others computers. Defense are not novices and knew their theory would be that Dzhokhar was induced to commit this crime. They are doing the exact same analysis. Not an argument for continuance. We gave all the most important devices to them many months ago. Expert testimony - we gave them what was requested, most of it was not that complicated, DNA, ballistics. It doesn’t take that long to verify analysis and is not grounds for a continuation. Evidence in this case, we have videotape and basic forensic evidence that links the defendant to the crime.

Judge O’Toole, speaking about jury selection issues


October 20th for the final pre trial conference. Any other issues?

The Judge was concerned that there has been no conversation about witness lists.

It’s getting time to do that, two weeks?

Weinreb Prosecution

The government would like the defendant present during the pre trial conference and jury selection.

Bruck Defense

We’ll certainly take that up with him.

At this point my hand was completely cramping up, and it was over!

Anonymous asked: Why is your submit button off?

I’ll turn it on when I get back home in a couple of days.

FYI I’m currently only accepting sexy Keanu pics. Thank you in advance.

Anonymous asked: Here is what caught this old attorney's attention today. From J. M. Lawrence Tweet: Case "would have been over a long time ago," if feds had not asked for death penalty, defense atty Bruck says. Important because it is a tacit admission of guilt and reflects the defense wants a deal, but Ortiz unwilling to deal away dp.

useyourcommoncents:

inktablet:

patsysvodka:

ladyjeanne:

patsysvodka:

Just got back, I have seven pages of notes. That statement from Bruck from my notes

"This is a case that is atypical. Other cases have taken four or five years, we have done our best to meet this trial date, it cannot be done. We are part of the process to get to the bottom of this, and find out why. There are reasons to ensure both have time to do our job. If the government had not asked for death this case would have been over by now."

It’s so much better getting some context to these statements instead of tweets. Can’t wait to read the rest. Thanks Pats!

I’ll type this up after I get some lunch. I will say the interior of Moakley courthouse is gorgeous. It was really weird seeing all the local reporters - remember the lady who didn’t know what 420 was? I saw her! I totally missed Carmen Ortiz! They check the courtroom with a bomb sniffing dog before the hearing starts, and the dog and her handler were pretty adorable together.

I can’t wait to read about your impressions!

Yeah, isn’t Moakley beautiful?  I’ve actually served jury duty there. I know what you mean… I think it will be surreal seeing everyone in person when I visit for this case. Especially after all this time has passed and we’ve come to know these people, in a sense.

Did you run across the Muslim Observer blogger..she would have sat with the GP. Can’t wait to hear how she reacts to Bruck’s comments about this would be over by now…!

Lol there were only about 15 people from the general public there. Pretty sure FDL was represented. I did’t chat anybody up or out myself.