credit
ain't no love
Doc 344; Motion to File Reply to Govt Opposition to Motion to Suppress Statements 060214

josephinax:

basically Miriam asking for permission to respond to the government’s “yea he was shot, yea he was drugged, yea he was tired but no big deal” document regarding the statements Jahar made at the hospital. 

(via justice4tsarnaev)

arcticfritillary:

rainbowclutter:

These are the victims of the May 23, 2014 Isla Vista, CA killings. They’ll receive too little face time for their loss.

this is literally the first time that i’ve seen their names and faces
the
first
time

patrickat:

White privilege is posting a manifesto on Youtube and carrying out a mass shooting that causes more deaths than the Boston Marathon bombing and the media doesn’t label you a terrorist.

(via girisdomain)

Tsarnaev lawyers balk at disclosing information they hope may convince jurors not to impose death penalty on accused Boston Marthon bomber - Metro - The Boston Globe

justice4tsarnaev:

Lawyers for accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev said today they did not want to disclose to prosecutors the arguments they may use to try to convince a federal jury to spare Tsarnaev’s life, if he is convicted.

The defense lawyers urged US District Court Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. to deny a request for disclosure of their arguments filed by federal prosecutors, who are seeking the death penalty for a number of the charges against Tsarnaev.

“The government seeks an advance look at the defendant’s basic arguments for life – essentially, his theory for why he should be allowed to live if convicted,’’ Tsarnaev’s defense team wrote in a filing in US District Court in Boston.

Prosecutors are not entitled to the list of mitigating factors, unless and until a jury has reached its verdict, and only if that verdict calls for the imposition of the death penalty, the defense said.

The defense said it had its own list of the arguments “in order to focus the jury on some of the reasons why a client should be spared execution … but nothing about that practice requires or implies advance disclosure to the government.”

Defense attorneys said Ortiz’s office is asking for the information so it can prepare the questionnaire that prospective jurors will be required to fill out before jury selection. Prosecutors, the defense said, do not need a peek into the defense strategy to decide how to approach the critical issue of jury selection.

“The defense agrees with the government that a meaningful voir dire examination of prospective jurors in death penalty cases must be framed in terms of the case to be tried,’’ the attorneys wrote.

But they added, “the government has no need of such information from the defense to craft its own proposed jury questionnaire. … It already knows what those factors are, or can figure them out easily enough.’’

Tsarnaev, 20, faces multiple charges that carry the possibility of the death penalty if convicted of setting off the April 15, 2013, bombs that killed three people and injured more than 260. He and his older brother and alleged accomplice, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, are also accused of shooting and killing an MIT police officer before attempting to flee the area. Tamerlan Tsarnaev was killed during a confrontation with police officers in Watertown.

The decision on whether Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will be executed will be made by a jury during a second, sentencing phase of the trial, if he is convicted.

(Source: let-goletgod)

justice4tsarnaev:

jaharplease:

Text messages.

"Can’t right now man"
He saw himself on the news and he laughed like..WHAT!? I’m done.
Edit: I don’t get the hours, anyone knows at what hour exactly they were sent? I mean Boston time? :/
Dzhokhar’s Four Phones | emptywheel

let-goletgod:

A month ago, the government argued in Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s case it had no discovery obligations under Section 215, which top government officials have said they used to achieve piece of mind.

Yesterday, Dzhokhar’s college buddies challenged their confession based on a claim the government didn’t have a warrant when it surrounded their apartment with 60 cops. The government’s excuse is that Tsarnaev received the bills for four AT&T phones at that address, and one of the phones had recently been used to call Russia.

Tsarnaev was receiving AT&T bills for four phones at that address. One of the phones had called Russia from near the UMass-Dartmouth campus, which led investigators to think he might be nearby – perhaps at his friends’ apartment. “I proceeded with all haste and with blue lights flashing” to where the phones suggested Tsarnaev might be, Walker said.


Soon about 60 officers had the New Bedford home surrounded.


Tsarnaev wasn’t inside, but his two friends were, along with Kadyrbayev’s girlfriend.


What happened next could affect the outcome of the cases against Tsarnaev’s friends. Walker said the FBI had not obtained a search warrant. Agents took the two men from the apartment, handcuffed them and questioned them in unmarked cars, Walker said, before they agreed to go to the State Police barracks for further questioning.
Kadyrbayev’s attorney Robert Stahl said that amounted to “uncounseled, unwarranted seizures of these individuals.” If the FBI violated the defendants’ rights, then their statements, which prosecutors are calling “confessions,” could be excluded from their trials.


This all occurred while Dzhokhar was bleeding out in a boat in Watertown.

There are multiple ways the FBI could have gotten these phone records. They may well have a database of subscriber information for major providers, meaning they could learn which carrier he used quickly within FBI. The could have gotten the call records just with NSLs. (NSA’s phone dragnet wouldn’t be all that useful at that stage, though it might have provided interesting information on the Russia call.) The FBI might even have used Hemisphere, which provides geolocation. (Remember, though, that MA’s Supreme Court just ruled the police need a warrant for cell location.)

The defendants have already received some of Dzhokhar’s texts in discovery, so I assume there are no evidentiary problems with those.

In other words, we should assume this data came from normal FBI sources, not NSA ones. (If so, it’s another strike against the claim the NSA needs the phone dragnet for quickness, because this would have happened quickly if the FBI’s narrative is true.)

But it does raise interesting questions about dual sources for the data at hand.

Also remember, these are the same phones that the same buddies had limited discovery on texts from, because Dhokhar had destroyed the one he was using.

(via justice4tsarnaev)

Mr. Tsarnaev also asked the agents several times about his brother, who, by the time of questioning, had been dead for nearly 48 hours. It is apparent that the agents falsely told him that
Tamerlan was alive. One of Mr.Tsarnaev’s notes reads: “Is my brother alive I know you said he is are you lying Is he alive? One person can tell you that.” Another asked: “Is he alive, show me the news! Whats today? Where is he?” In his last note, Mr.Tsarnaev wrote, “can I sleep? Can you not handcuff my right arm? Where is my bro Are you sure.”

Doc 295

Motion to Suppress Statements

(via patsysvodka)

(via fxcknoor)

Anonymous said: How can you think that terrorist is innocent?

justice4tsarnaev:

dzhoslibrarian:

somethingreallyirrelevant:

justice4tsarnaev:

somethingreallyirrelevant:

katekarma:

Prove me that he is a terrorist.

All that I know : THIS CASE WAS BUILD ON FUCKING LIES.

So go on. Prove me wrong, dear anon

Not your anon, but the fact that the defense isn’t denying A) the existence of the boat note and B) the defense is focusing largely on the mitigation aspect of the case should, at the very least, not rule out that Dzhokhar may be guilty. And the boat note doeskind of make this more or less classic terrorism. Ideological motive, statement, etc.

At this point Dzhokhar being guilty isn’t the larger issue, IMO. Regardless of his guilt or innocence, this case was poorly handled, very questionable things were done by law enforcement and by the prosecution, and the lack of proper investigation into any of it - let alone the fact that it was able to happen in the first place - should be cause of great concern to all.

A) Defense isn’t saying the boat note does not exist but that does not mean it was written by him. I still wonder if they actually have seen it.

B) Defense is not focusing solely in the mitigation part. Doc 276, defense schedule for expert disclosures: Half of the points are for the penalty case and the other half is for the guilty phase. Anyways, I don’t think it’s strange they would focus more in the mitigation stuff since it’s pretty clear he is not going to be free, so the most important thing is to save his life.

Neither A or B prove her wrong.

Wasn’t trying to prove her wrong, she can believe whatever she wants to. I was simply trying to offer a different perspective.

They are focusing very heavily on mitigation, which to me is a key sign that they can’t prove his innocence. If they could prove his innocence they would not be focusing on mitigation. Of course they can’t straight-up say they’re denying his innocence, but that’s what I’m deducing from the way the case is proceeding. It’s an opinion, yours may differ.

I’m not the anon, just ftr.

justice4tsarnaev, you wrote, "Defense isn’t saying the boat note does not exist but that does not mean it was written by him. I still wonder if they actually have seen it." 

You may have forgotten about Document 138, filed Nov. 4.  Screen shot from page 6 of that doc:

image

They were tacitly admitting that he wrote the boat note.  His defense would never explain a piece of evidence or use that piece of evidence to bolster their case for the SAMs to be vacated if they had any reason to believe that piece of evidence was fabricated or not authentic.

So the fact that his defense was using it to make the case for the SAMs to be vacated is very telling. Look at it this way: if you were his attorney, would you cite evidence you believed to be false in an effort to help your client with some other aspect of his case? Especially if the evidence you believed to be false was a confession of guilt /statement of motive alleged to have been written by your client? No competent attorney would use evidence they believed to be false in an effort to help their client achieve some other legal goal (the goal in this case being vacation of the SAMs). 

Also, on a side note, I am sure the defense has seen the boat note by now. They would not have cited it in multiple documents if they had not seen it.

No, I haven’t forgotten about it. Actually, I cited exactly that paragraph one day not so long ago to you exactly for the boat note issue. So I am pretty aware of what that paper say.

Once again, I say the defense said alleged writtings. You are American, you know better than me the meaning of alleged, but just in case:

Adjective:

  • stated or described to be such; presumed
  • dubious


Example: An alleged fact has been stated but has not been proved to be true….an alleged miracle.

They did not admit anything at all, they said if the writtings were written by him, he did it because he thought he was going to die. Evidence hasn’t been turned to defense, so they don’t know if they boat note is legit or not (only if Tsarnaev admitted he wrote it but we don’t know that either) and also we don’t know if calligraphic test has been done to the piece of boat and what the results are.

My field of study is nothing close to law. I don’t know nothing about law and for that reason I am not going to speculate about what I would do as one or what a lawyer would do.

Summary: I stick to what I said, that kind of games do not work with me. Period.