The Supreme Court has reinstated the federal death sentence of Muslim terrorist Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was convicted of bombing the 2013 Boston Marathon, in a 6–3 decision, with all three liberal justices dissenting from the ruling.
Tsarnaev, 28, is the only surviving perpetrator of the attack deemed to be one of the worst acts of terrorism on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001.
Working with his older brother, Tamerlan, who later died when Dzhokhar accidentally ran him over with a stolen car following a gunfight with police, the Tsarnaevs each placed a homemade pressure-cooker shrapnel bomb filled with BBs and nails near the crowded finish line area of the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013.
The bombs caused devastating injuries to marathon spectators. Three people were killed and 260 were injured.
“Blood and body parts were everywhere,” littered among “BBs, nails, metal scraps, and glass fragments,” a court document stated. “The smell of smoke and burnt flesh filled the air,” and “screams of panic and pain echoed throughout the site.”
In its ruling, the Supreme Court noted that the blast from one of the bombs shattered Krystle Campbell’s left femur and mutilated her legs. Bystanders tried to save her, but she bled to death on the sidewalk. The blast also ripped apart the legs of Boston University student Lingzi Lu, who died from blood loss. Shrapnel hit the body of 8-year-old Martin Richard with such force that it exited his back and nearly severed his left hand. He, too, bled to death. The boy’s 6-year-old sister lost a limb in the incident.
Although President Joe Biden promised during the 2020 campaign to abolish capital punishment, his administration urged the justices to overturn a July 31, 2020, ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit that vacated Tsarnaev’s federal death sentence.
A U.S. district court had imposed capital sentences for six counts and sentences of life imprisonment for multiple additional counts. Finding the trial court failed to properly assess potential jury bias, the 1st Circuit affirmed 27 of Tsarnaev’s convictions, reversed three convictions, vacated his capital sentences, and remanded the case for a new penalty proceeding.
“Dzhokhar Tsarnaev committed heinous crimes,” Thomas wrote.
“The Sixth Amendment nonetheless guaranteed him a fair trial before an impartial jury. He received one.”
At the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on Oct. 13, 2021, which The Epoch Times reported on at the time, Tsarnaev’s punishment and the means by which it was decided—as opposed to his guilt—was the only issue.
The hearing focused on alleged juror bias and evidence that Tamerlan was involved in a jihad-related triple murder two years before the marathon bombing. The evidence was excluded from Tsarnaev’s original trial in federal court in Massachusetts. Tsarnaev’s lawyer argued that the brother influenced and indoctrinated him into supporting a jihad against the United States and that this factor was given short shrift during the sentencing phase.
Thomas rejected claims that the jury-selection process was unfair.
The U.S. district court called upon a pool of 1,373 prospective jurors and used the 100-question juror form to cull that to 256, Thomas wrote.
“The questionnaire asked prospective jurors what media sources they followed, how much they consumed, whether they had ever commented on the bombings in letters, calls, or online posts, and, most pointedly, whether any of that information had caused the prospective juror to form an opinion about Dzhokhar’s guilt or punishment,” the justice wrote.
“The court then subjected those 256 prospective jurors to three weeks of individualized voir dire in which the court and both parties had the opportunity to ask additional questions and probe for bias. Dzhokhar’s attorneys asked several prospective jurors what they had heard, read, or seen about the case in the media.”
The trial court also provided clear, emphatic instructions to jurors on their sworn duty to decide the issues based only on evidence adduced in open court, he wrote.
The trial court’s “jury selection process was both eminently reasonable and wholly consistent with this court’s precedents,” Thomas wrote, adding that the 1st Circuit “erred in holding otherwise.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a concurring opinion, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined.
Barrett faulted the 1st Circuit for taking it upon itself to exercise a “supervisory power” to impose a procedural rule on the district court, a power she said the appeals court did not possess “in the first place.” The rule required the district court to ask media-content questions of jurors in high-profile prosecutions, she wrote.
Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissenting opinion was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
Breyer noted that during the sentencing phase of his murder trial, Tsarnaev “argued that he should not receive the death penalty primarily on the ground that his older brother Tamerlan took the leading role and induced Dzhokhar’s participation in the bombings.”
“Dzhokhar argued that Tamerlan was a highly violent man, that Tamerlan radicalized him, and that Dzhokhar participated in the bombings because of Tamerlan’s violent influence and leadership,” the justice wrote.
“In support of this argument, Dzhokhar sought to introduce evidence that Tamerlan previously committed three brutal, ideologically inspired murders in Waltham, Massachusetts. The District Court prohibited Dzhokhar from introducing this evidence,” and was wrong to do so, Breyer wrote.
Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, Tsarnaev probably won’t be executed for years to come.
Although the Trump administration ended a moratorium on federal executions, putting about a dozen condemned men to death near the end of President Donald Trump’s term, Biden reinstituted the moratorium, saying the Department of Justice needed time to review its policies and procedures pertaining to executions.
Tsarnaev’s attorney, Ginger Anders, didn’t respond by press time to a request by The Epoch Times for comment.
Friends Read Free