I will be as concise as I can.
This ruling was announced four days ago on July 31st, but it took me a while to fully digest Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson's 224-page opinion. Fun fact: Thompson is the 1st African-American and the 2nd femoid to serve on the Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit.
You can read the ruling here.
Background
In April 2013, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev set off two homemade bombs at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. The bombings killed 3 and injured over 200 others. In the ensuing manhunt, the brothers shot and killed an MIT police officer, and kidnapped a ricecel and carjacked his Mercedes, forcing authorities to declare a lockdown in much of Boston. Tamerlan was shot and killed by law enforcement; Dzhokhar was captured and charged with 30 various counts at the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Jury selection began in January 2015 with 1,373 potential jurors. Throughout jury selection, the defence made repeated requests for a change of venue, arguing that the extensive publicity surrounding the case meant that Dzhokhar could not receive a fair trial in the Boston area. District Judge George O'Toole denied those requests, saying that he could find 12 impartial jurors. After a very long jury questionnaire and individual voir dire, the 1,373 potential jurors were narrowed down to a pool of 75 provisional jurors, who were grilled at length about their background and their knowledge of the case. In narrowing the group of 70 (5 were excused for hardship) down to 12, both the defence and the prosecution used up all of their peremptory challenges.
In April 2015, the jury found Dzhokhar guilty on all 30 counts. One month later, the jury reconvened in the sentencing phase to determine if there were sufficient aggravating sentences to justify the death penalty; they did so on 6 of the 17 death-eligible counts, and Dzhokhar was sentenced to death and multiple counts of life imprisonment without parole. Dzhokhar appealed to the 1st Circuit.
The appeals court ruling
While the defence appealed the verdict on multiple fronts, Thompson's opinion mainly focused on jury impartiality; more specifically, jurors #138 and #286, the latter who served as the forewoman.
On the first day of jury selection, Juror #138 violated the judge's preliminary directive to not post on social media about the case. On Facebook, Juror #138 posted:
In response, one of Juror #138's Facebook friends commented:
Juror #286 withheld from the court 22 social media posts which may have influenced the case. On the day of the bombings, #286 tweeted:
On the day of Dzhokhar's capture, she retweeted a post which said:
The defence sought to excuse both #138 and #286, but O'Toole still kept them on the jury after they responded "yes" when the judge asked whether they could render their judgment impartially.
Thompson maintained that these jurors' prejudicial social media posts, combined with O'Toole's failure to adequately screen jurors' exposure to pretrial publicity, meant that the district court failed to protect Dzhokhar's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by falling short of the standard set in Patriarca v. United States (1st Cir. 1969). By keeping #138 and #286 on the jury, Thompson wrote that O'Toole "relied too heavily on the jurors' assessment of their own biases".
The 1st Circuit consequently reversed three of Dzhokhar's convictions, vacated his death sentence, and remanded the case to the district court for re-sentencing on the 6 capital counts.
Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella filed a concurring opinion arguing that it was simply impossible for Tsarnaev to receive a fair trial in the Boston area, in violation of Rule 21(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The 1st Circuit did not rule on the defence's argument that Dzhokhar's death sentence was in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. Dzhokhar was 19 at the time of the bombings; the defence sought to argue that the death penalty was unconstitutional for persons under the age of 21, effectively seeking to extend Roper v. Simmons (2005), which currently sets the death-eligible age at 18. (Personally, I would've ruled in favour of the defence on this particular argument, because IMO it is absurd to execute someone who isn't even old enough to drink.)
The whining
It did not take long for the public to attack the 1st Circuit's opinion. Two femoid survivors and their simps reacted with outrage
:
View: https://www.instagram.com/p/CDUxDKkHHBr/
View: https://www.facebook.com/RebekahMGregoryPage/posts/3151524244963503
I believe it is extremely unfortunate for them and their simps to describe this ruling as "an outrage" or "an attack" or "a victory for a terrorist". Contrary to public opinion, civil liberties and fair criminal procedure doesn't just protect "the bad guys", it protects everyone (especially indigent individuals and minorities) from government corruption, prosecutorial misconduct, and abuse of power. While I'm sure that O'Toole is a diligent and conscientious jurist, I think that Dzhokhar's Fifth Amendment right to due process and Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury may have been violated, and where the stakes are this high -- as it is in every death penalty case -- the system should err on the side of leniency for the defendant.
I am disappointed that the femoids have chosen to misguidedly attack three fair-minded appeals court judges instead of examining the ruling in further detail. From a public safety POV, this ruling is immaterial; Dhzokhar will spend the rest of his life in ADX Florence even if he isn't executed. The survivors could avoid re-testifying simply if the DOJ was willing to accept the sentence of life in prison.
In any case, I believe the U.S. government will seek to rehear the case en banc, or seek certiorari from the Supremes, so this isn't the last we're going to hear about Tsarnaev.
This ruling was announced four days ago on July 31st, but it took me a while to fully digest Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson's 224-page opinion. Fun fact: Thompson is the 1st African-American and the 2nd femoid to serve on the Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit.
You can read the ruling here.
Background
In April 2013, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev set off two homemade bombs at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. The bombings killed 3 and injured over 200 others. In the ensuing manhunt, the brothers shot and killed an MIT police officer, and kidnapped a ricecel and carjacked his Mercedes, forcing authorities to declare a lockdown in much of Boston. Tamerlan was shot and killed by law enforcement; Dzhokhar was captured and charged with 30 various counts at the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Jury selection began in January 2015 with 1,373 potential jurors. Throughout jury selection, the defence made repeated requests for a change of venue, arguing that the extensive publicity surrounding the case meant that Dzhokhar could not receive a fair trial in the Boston area. District Judge George O'Toole denied those requests, saying that he could find 12 impartial jurors. After a very long jury questionnaire and individual voir dire, the 1,373 potential jurors were narrowed down to a pool of 75 provisional jurors, who were grilled at length about their background and their knowledge of the case. In narrowing the group of 70 (5 were excused for hardship) down to 12, both the defence and the prosecution used up all of their peremptory challenges.
In April 2015, the jury found Dzhokhar guilty on all 30 counts. One month later, the jury reconvened in the sentencing phase to determine if there were sufficient aggravating sentences to justify the death penalty; they did so on 6 of the 17 death-eligible counts, and Dzhokhar was sentenced to death and multiple counts of life imprisonment without parole. Dzhokhar appealed to the 1st Circuit.
The appeals court ruling
While the defence appealed the verdict on multiple fronts, Thompson's opinion mainly focused on jury impartiality; more specifically, jurors #138 and #286, the latter who served as the forewoman.
On the first day of jury selection, Juror #138 violated the judge's preliminary directive to not post on social media about the case. On Facebook, Juror #138 posted:
In response, one of Juror #138's Facebook friends commented:
Juror #286 withheld from the court 22 social media posts which may have influenced the case. On the day of the bombings, #286 tweeted:
On the day of Dzhokhar's capture, she retweeted a post which said:
The defence sought to excuse both #138 and #286, but O'Toole still kept them on the jury after they responded "yes" when the judge asked whether they could render their judgment impartially.
Thompson maintained that these jurors' prejudicial social media posts, combined with O'Toole's failure to adequately screen jurors' exposure to pretrial publicity, meant that the district court failed to protect Dzhokhar's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by falling short of the standard set in Patriarca v. United States (1st Cir. 1969). By keeping #138 and #286 on the jury, Thompson wrote that O'Toole "relied too heavily on the jurors' assessment of their own biases".
The 1st Circuit consequently reversed three of Dzhokhar's convictions, vacated his death sentence, and remanded the case to the district court for re-sentencing on the 6 capital counts.
Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella filed a concurring opinion arguing that it was simply impossible for Tsarnaev to receive a fair trial in the Boston area, in violation of Rule 21(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The 1st Circuit did not rule on the defence's argument that Dzhokhar's death sentence was in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. Dzhokhar was 19 at the time of the bombings; the defence sought to argue that the death penalty was unconstitutional for persons under the age of 21, effectively seeking to extend Roper v. Simmons (2005), which currently sets the death-eligible age at 18. (Personally, I would've ruled in favour of the defence on this particular argument, because IMO it is absurd to execute someone who isn't even old enough to drink.)
The whining
It did not take long for the public to attack the 1st Circuit's opinion. Two femoid survivors and their simps reacted with outrage
:View: https://www.instagram.com/p/CDUxDKkHHBr/
View: https://www.facebook.com/RebekahMGregoryPage/posts/3151524244963503
I believe it is extremely unfortunate for them and their simps to describe this ruling as "an outrage" or "an attack" or "a victory for a terrorist". Contrary to public opinion, civil liberties and fair criminal procedure doesn't just protect "the bad guys", it protects everyone (especially indigent individuals and minorities) from government corruption, prosecutorial misconduct, and abuse of power. While I'm sure that O'Toole is a diligent and conscientious jurist, I think that Dzhokhar's Fifth Amendment right to due process and Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury may have been violated, and where the stakes are this high -- as it is in every death penalty case -- the system should err on the side of leniency for the defendant.
I am disappointed that the femoids have chosen to misguidedly attack three fair-minded appeals court judges instead of examining the ruling in further detail. From a public safety POV, this ruling is immaterial; Dhzokhar will spend the rest of his life in ADX Florence even if he isn't executed. The survivors could avoid re-testifying simply if the DOJ was willing to accept the sentence of life in prison.
In any case, I believe the U.S. government will seek to rehear the case en banc, or seek certiorari from the Supremes, so this isn't the last we're going to hear about Tsarnaev.
Last edited:
