Explosion at the Boston Marathon.

[phiwum]

At arraignment, yes. At trial, no.

I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that pleas are entered at arraignment and not entered at trial (though, I suppose, someone could reverse a plea of not guilty during the trial -- not sure how that works).

Abaddon, if you are so certain that at some point during the trial, Tsarnaev pleaded guilty, then why not show us a reference? As it is, you appear to be confusing the fact that the defense explicitly said, "He did it," with a plea. It isn't a plea.

With due respect, you're just butt wrong on this one. Tsarnaev pleaded not guilty, and that's why there was a full trial, complete with jury deliberation over whether he was guilty or not.

 

[newyorkguy]

Dzhokhar Tarsarnaev pled not guilty at his arraignment too, to all thirty charges. This is from the Boston Globe story reporting the arraignment last July.

[After] federal prosecutors read the charges against him Wednesday in his first appearance since being captured in April, Tsarnaev...leaned into the microphone in the hushed courtroom to tell Judge Marianne B. Bowler with an accent that he pleaded not guilty to 30 charges. News link

 

[Rat]

leaned into the microphone in the hushed courtroom to tell Judge Marianne B. Bowler with an accent that he pleaded not guilty to 30 charges.

Marianne B Böwler?

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

At arraignment, yes. At trial, no.

You are incorrect. There is no such thing as "entering a plea" at trial. At trial, the defendant presents his evidence for the plea he entered at arraignment, which in this case was "not guilty". Tsarnaev and his lawyers never changed that plea, even though their reasons for his being "not guilty" involved an admission that he did actually participate in the crimes he was being charged with. If the plea had been changed, there would have been no trial. The trial is where the defendant gets to present his case for the plea he entered at arraignment, which is what was done in this trial. Just because his defense was "I did it, BUT..." does not mean he was admittedly guilt or pleading guilt. In fact, it means the complete opposite. His lawyers were asserting his innocence (or more technically, his non-guilt) IN SPITE of the fact that he was admitting his participation.

In no way, shape, or form does that mean he pleaded guilty at his trial. They were still maintaining that he was "not guilty". At this point it just feels like you don't want to be wrong.

 

[abaddon]

You are incorrect. There is no such thing as "entering a plea" at trial. At trial, the defendant presents his evidence for the plea he entered at arraignment, which in this case was "not guilty". Tsarnaev and his lawyers never changed that plea, even though their reasons for his being "not guilty" involved an admission that he did actually participate in the crimes he was being charged with. If the plea had been changed, there would have been no trial. The trial is where the defendant gets to present his case for the plea he entered at arraignment, which is what was done in this trial. Just because his defense was "I did it, BUT..." does not mean he was admittedly guilt or pleading guilt. In fact, it means the complete opposite. His lawyers were asserting his innocence (or more technically, his non-guilt) IN SPITE of the fact that he was admitting his participation.

In no way, shape, or form does that mean he pleaded guilty at his trial. They were still maintaining that he was "not guilty". At this point it just feels like you don't want to be wrong.

Uhh, that's what I said. He entered his plea at arraignment. Which is where you are supposed to do it. Before the actual trial.

 

[phiwum]

Uhh, that's what I said. He entered his plea at arraignment. Which is where you are supposed to do it. Before the actual trial.

Well, that's part of what you said. Here's some other things you said.

Maybe not so bad. They entered a guilty plea from the outset ...

No, they didn't. Tsarnaev pled "Not Guilty."

Source?

At arraignment, yes. At trial, no.

Here's what you have never said, though perhaps you should have.

You're right. They never entered a guilty plea. I misspoke.

That would be rather clearer than the bizarre point that they didn't enter a non-guilty plea during the trial (when pleas are not typically -- or ever? -- entered at all).

Honestly, and with all due respect, it really isn't in your interest to pretend that you have been completely correct in this. You obviously were mistaken when you said "they entered a guilty plea." Those words have a clear meaning, and as it turns out, the statement is plainly false.

 

[newyorkguy]

Another issue is the decision to seek the death penalty in the Dzhokar Tsarnaev case. The decision was made by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. From a CNN news report in January 2014:

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder will decide by Friday [January 31, 2014] whether to seek the death penalty in federal court for Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokar Tsarnaev, he has told lawmakers...Holder made Wednesday's comment at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Link

The fact that it was the U.S. Attorney General himself who made the decision, that the decision was not taken until eight months after the bombing, and that Holder spoke to the Senate about it, is a pretty strong indication, I think, that the decision was probably discussed at the highest levels. And that it was obviously decided not to let what terrorists might do control that decision.

 

[fuelair]

I was hoping progressive misogyny went the way of Lefty Sergeant on this forum.

Thanks for the reminder how much Lefty is missed here!!!!!

 

[fuelair]

Also, I miss the misogyny - the bimbo note was not made by a member here afaik - it was made by the service quoted.

 

[abaddon]

Well, that's part of what you said. Here's some other things you said.



Here's what you have never said, though perhaps you should have.



That would be rather clearer than the bizarre point that they didn't enter a non-guilty plea during the trial (when pleas are not typically -- or ever? -- entered at all).

Honestly, and with all due respect, it really isn't in your interest to pretend that you have been completely correct in this. You obviously were mistaken when you said "they entered a guilty plea." Those words have a clear meaning, and as it turns out, the statement is plainly false.

Pointless nit picking. Enjoy, if it gives you happiness.

IANAL, but the strategy of the defence appears to be solely to avoid the death penalty. Plead not guilty at arraignment to gain a jury trial. Plead that he did it, but only under duress from his brother, at said jury trial. This is the same team that defended the Unabomber.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Pointless nit picking. Enjoy, if it gives you happiness.

IANAL, but the strategy of the defence appears to be solely to avoid the death penalty. Plead not guilty at arraignment to gain a jury trial. Plead that he did it, but only under duress from his brother, at said jury trial. This is the same team that defended the Unabomber.

Yes, that's all been covered and has been commented on by most reporters covering the trial.

 

[Sabrina]

The thought I had was, this case was tried by federal prosecutors. If the U.S. Government had felt executing Tsarnaev would carry a high probability of triggering 'pay back' terrorist attacks than I think they would probably have communicated that to the U.S. Attorney's office that is handling the case.

Yet the Massachusetts' U.S. Attorney's office announced from virtually the start they would be seeking the death penalty. I would conclude from that either the U.S. Government does not believe executing Tsarnaev will necessarily trigger retaliatory terrorist attacks or, at minimum, does not believe it's something that should influence the decision to seek the death penalty.

Or, they made the decision to seek the death penalty against the advice of cooler heads and in the heat of the moment following the tragedy, and could not change their decision later once they thought more carefully about it.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but given that we do not know specifically what was discussed in regards to the death penalty, I think it's as likely as any other option.

 

[phiwum]

Or, they made the decision to seek the death penalty against the advice of cooler heads and in the heat of the moment following the tragedy, and could not change their decision later once they thought more carefully about it.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but given that we do not know specifically what was discussed in regards to the death penalty, I think it's as likely as any other option.

Another post made by NewYorkGuy said that the decision was made and announced eight months after the bombing, by Attorney General Holder. That's not a rash decision.

The two posts seem to contradict each other, but I'm betting the later post (the Holder post) is more accurate.

Note that, even if the original post was right (that a U.S. Attorney made the decision quickly), I don't think it's just as likely that it was a rash and badly made decision that he regrets as otherwise.

 

[Belz...]

This,

The problem I have with a number of "Progressives" is that they reject Deterrence completly as a goal of criminal justice.Which IMHO Is stupid,given what human nature is.

But does deterrence actually work ?

 

[newyorkguy]

Another post made by NewYorkGuy said that the decision was made and announced eight months after the bombing, by Attorney General Holder. That's not a rash decision.

The two posts seem to contradict each other, but I'm betting the later post (the Holder post) is more accurate.

When I wrote earlier that the U.S. Attorney in Massachusetts said from the start that they would seek the death penalty I was going by memory and that probably was inaccurate. I think what the U.S. Attorney was actually saying was a little different. Given the huge amount of press coverage of this case it's hard to find information from two years ago but I think what they were saying was the crimes Tsarnaev was charged with did carry a possible death penalty and they weren't ruling it out.

In July 2013 -- three months after the bombing -- CBS News reported:

"There's going to be a lot of push in that U.S. attorney's office in Boston to seek the death penalty in this case," predicts former prosecutor Johnny Sutton, who chaired a panel of 17 U.S. attorneys advising the attorney general on law enforcement issues during the George W. Bush administration. Sutton was U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas from 2001 to 2009.

However the U.S. Attorney in Boston was being very circumspect:

On June 27, Carmen Ortiz, the U.S. attorney in Boston, said, "We will do everything that we can to pursue justice." Her comments followed the handing up of a 30-count indictment against Tsarnaev that included 17 charges carrying the death penalty or life imprisonment.

It was also reported in the same news article that the decision on whether or not to seek the death penalty was not up to the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney, that ultimately Eric Holder would be the one to decide.

Before the Justice Department decides to seek the death penalty, a case moves through three tiers of review by federal prosecutors.

 

[newyorkguy]

The prosecution has presented its case for sentencing Dzhokar Tsarnaev to death. The U.S. Attorney did this by bringing to the witness stand survivors of the bomb blast, first-responders and medical workers who gave graphic, often emotional, testimony as to the carnage caused by the two bombs Dzhokar and his brother Tamerlane Tsarnaev planted near the finish line at the Boston Marathon.

[One of the] marathon attendee rendered an amputee by the Tsarnaev brothers' attack, Marc Fucarile, recounted [to the jury] the two bombs going off. "I stepped back, and the next thing I remember was looking up at the sky," he testified, adding that he remembered "a lot of yelling, a lot of screaming, people crying out for tourniquets." A nurse was sitting on his chest, and someone said, "Oh, s***, he's on fire!" He tried to undo his belt and got a third-degree burn because the buckle was so hot.

A firefighter would later tell Fucarile that he handed his own right leg to the firefighter. He doesn't remember that. CNN news link

The prosecution is trying to convince the jury that Tsarnaev's crime was so brutal, caused so much death, pain and suffering, that he deserves the most severe punishment. In this case that means execution.

I was under the impression Tsarnaev's defense team was to begin their presentation to the jury today, asking jurors to spare the life of the twenty-one-year-old and instead sentence him to life in prison. However, I believe the next court date was rescheduled for Monday.

 

[newyorkguy]

The penalty phase of the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev trial is being delayed due to a juror becoming ill. It is expected to resume next week.

Defense lawyers have put a series of friends and former teachers of Tsarnaev's on the witness stand. They described a friendly outgoing teenager who was, as his former wrestling coach described him, "very coachable."

Lawyers seeking to spare Tsarnaev the death penalty have sought to portray him as a bright young man whose chance at a good life in the United States was derailed when he fell under the influence of his now-dead older brother Tamerlan. News link

Relatives of Tsarnaev's from Russia are on hand and are to testify next.

 

[phiwum]

Tsarnaev was just sentenced to death.

 

[NoahFence]

I'm split between being satisfied at the verdict, yet I feel for the victims who have expressed a desire to sentence him to life, to void the appeals process.

They wanted him out of sight and out of mind, and now we're going to have to deal with that.

 

[theprestige]

As much as I think the death penalty is, in principle, an important tool of any civilized justice system, without a prompt, effective, and decisive appeals process I don't really see the point.

Either we need to execute the right people rightly, or not at all.