A Landslide for Guilty at the Boston Marathon Bombing Trial?

Reading Time: 3 minutes
Tsarnaev is transferred to court. Courtesy WHDH  TV.

Tsarnaev is transferred to court. Courtesy WHDH TV.

The pre-trial results are in from a straw poll of prospective jurors in Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s capital felony case.
Not suprisingly, it’s a landslide for guilty.

The defense team argues that out of 1,373 prospective jurors, 68 percent believe Tsarnaev is guilty of taking part in the Boston Marathon Bombing. If one adds to that personal connections or allegiances to people affected by the terrorist attack, the number of jurors who already have a reason to vote for guilty leaps to 85 percent, according to a motion filed by the defense.

But what’s even more unusual is the reaction of U.S. District Judge George O’Toole to the motion, which was filed publicly and disseminated widely on social media:  “though the damage already may have been done by the defendant’s public filing of confidential material, I have ordered the memorandum in support of the defendant’s motion to be placed under seal until further order.”

From the defense motion.

From the defense motion.

The defense document was part of a third attempt to get the trial moved out of Boston. O’Toole has refused all three efforts, and the latest one is almost certainly about laying the groundwork for an appeal. Earlier defense attempts tried to show that their client couldn’t get a fair trial because the public has been bombarded by law enforcement leaks and pretrial publicity.

Judge, You’re Killing Me

Arguing that Tsarnaev can’t get a fair trial in a city that was traumatized 15 months ago by the bombing and its aftermath, defense lawyers cited the revealing responses of prospective jurors to questions put to them by prosecutors, defense lawyers and the judge himself.

Many prospective jurors were clearly confused about the fundamental legal principle that a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Day by day O’Toole has grown more assertive in explaining to prospective jurors that the burden of proof rests entirely with the prosecution, and that the defense does not have to persuade anybody of anything.

Here’s a selection of some of the responses prospective jurors have given:

One prospective juror, a social worker at Massachusetts General Hospital, laughed out loud at the judge. “You’re killing me,” she told the judge, her voice rising. “I can’t imagine not being convinced by the evidence.”

Another wrote on his juror questionnaire: “for this case I think a public execution would be appropriate, preferably by bomb at the finish line of the marathon.”

One woman said she would vote automatically for the death penalty if Tsarnaev is found guilty, ignoring the judge’s instructions to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

The jury selection process typically reveals how little understanding many citizens have of the rule that all defendants are presumed innocent until the end of a trial.  But in their fight to get this trial moved out of the Boston area, the defense team has repeatedly argued that the number of local citizens able to make this assumption about Tsarnaev is vanishingly small.

Presumed Guilty?

A federal death-penalty trial has two phases. In the first, a jury is asked to decide if the defendant is guilty or not guilty. If he is found guilty, the same jury must then decide whether to impose the death penalty–or some lesser sentence, based on the presentation of “mitigating circumstances” by the defense.

Jury selection is still plowing forward. On Friday, Jan. 23, O’Toole questioned jurors individually for a sixth day.

The court proceedings so far have been conducted under strict rules intended to guard the identity of prospective jurors:  they are never identified by name, only by number; the public has been barred from the courtroom, and the judge even tried to ban all members of the media before agreeing to let in two pool reporters. Other media representatives must watch the show from nearby rooms via an audio-video feed controlled by O’Toole.

Opening arguments in the case, in which the prosecution has said it was will seek the death penalty if Tsarnaev is convicted, have been postponed indefinitely from a scheduled start of Jan. 26.

Defense attorney David Bruck put it this way: “The government and the court [have] been asking jurors if they can suspend opinion of guilt long enough for government to prove its case. For many,” Bruck said, “the trial of guilt or innocence is over.

Please take a look at our full coverage of the Boston Marathon Bombing and our primer of stories to bring you up to speed for the trial. 

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.

print

0 responses to “A Landslide for Guilty at the Boston Marathon Bombing Trial?”

  1. Francis Beans says:

    Hold the trial in terrorists countries ..and when he is found guilty..blame it on god

  2. disqus_lxhOkuBGvA says:

    There is only one reason to ask for a move, and that is the gullibility of the Boston public. Problem is, they are just as gullible every where else.

  3. Boeser Wolf says:

    A Court of Law has nothing to do with justice or revealing the truth. It’s all a game of persuasion, strategy and power.

  4. Legalized Torture says:

    The Americunt Judiciary has the credibility of CELERY, what with their legalized torture, legalized kidnappings, legalized drone-bombings of kids playing soccer 7422 miles away from here, secret courts, secret warrants, legalized police brutality, legalized financial fraud, massive wiretappings of absolutely everyone and everything, a worldwide web of clandestine detention/torture centers overseas, a state-controlled news media, legalized food poisoning, legalized electoral fraud, a corrupt judiciary, legalized highway robbery (aka Civil Asset Forfeitures), legalized market data manipulation, and forcing the population to buy overpriced “healthcare” plans practically at gunpoint.

    What a fooking F A R C E.

  5. omar cluck says:

    Every comment I’ve seen here makes the assumption that Tsarnaev must be innocent because he wasn’t granted a change in venue. If you’re ready to find a conspiracy under every rock, I guess this makes sense to you. While I find it incredible that a change in venue wasn’t granted, it doesn’t prove innocence to me. There may be other motives for the decision not to move the trial out of Boston. The prosecutor’s overzealousness in getting a guilty verdict for a guilty man might be one of them. If Tsarnaev is such a paragon of virtue, why was he hiding in that boat, and how did he get all of those bullets in him? Why was he photographed with that backpack near the finish line, shortly before the backpack apparently blew up? The more ifs ands and buts you give me in explanations, the shakier the paradigm becomes, and the more unlikely your truth is. Consider Occam’s Razor. The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. The case against Tsarnaev rests largely on photographic evidence and eyewitness testimony anyway, not on hypotheses. If you reject this evidence, you’ve already convinced yourself of Tsarnaev’s innocence anyway, just like the Boston jurors have become biased about his guilt. Even if the FBI is corrupt, as they appear to be, it does not make every arm of the federal bureaucracy corrupt. The courts in Boston really didn’t do the prosecution any favors by keeping the trial there, they just gave the defense an excellent point on which to appeal the apparent conviction that will happen.

    • disqus_lxhOkuBGvA says:

      He was hiding in that boat, because he knew what would happen to him, same reason Hamyd Mourad gave himself up to police, seems he had more luck, especially as they both knew they were being hunted. Ask yourself where 10,000 security people came from, and why there is a trial if he had written his confession on the side of the boat, it’s the type of rubbish hollywood comes up with? Main question, why does no one investigate, what are they scared of? US, land of the free to do as they are told.

  6. arnieus says:

    A live patsy with a story to tell. Somebody screwed up and its hard to cover up with out being obvious.

  7. onetree says:

    What this proves is that this judge is completely corrupt and should be removed from the case and preferably that the case should be moved to the west coast, as well as gives a very strong impression that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is innocent. After all, if the corrupt government forces have to work so hard in such underhanded ways to get a guilty verdict and it’s clear they are going for the death penalty, it’s more than obvious that they’re covering up for others and using the Tsarnaev brothers as their patsies. I’m very sorry for the people of the Boston area who have been brainwashed and mind controlled, since they will have a great deal of karma to face if a guilty verdict is given by their jury.

    If the trial is conducted in Boston and a guilty verdict is given with a death penalty recommendation from the jury, what kind of fury and revolt will there be when the truth comes out and the people of Boston realize how easily they were mislead into convicting and executing an innocent person?

  8. ScroodeMcDuck says:

    There you go,the stats. prove that 68% of Bostonians are the walking dead. No independent thought or critical thinking skills. They must eat M&M’s while watching and reading their MSM’s ! http://www.globalresearch.ca/hollywood-producer-claims-boston-bombing-was-a-false-flag-attack/5379396 http://deepinsidetherabbithole.com/The_Boston_Bombing_Hoax.html http://nodisinfo.com/absolute-proof-boston-bombing-was-a-staged-hoax/ What is it going to take to get people to WAKE UP !

    • MarkTenneyNewMathDoneRight says:

      I have not had my magic M and M’s today. Thanks for reminding me. Believing the govt was wearing off and I was full of questions about this.

    • ScroodeMcDuck says:

      That is a reassuring statement ! I live in the Wash.D.C. area and the percentage of walking dead here is probably higher and I don’t even want to discuss what they may be eating ! You are in good company here.we all have an uphill battle to try to awaken our brethren.

  9. edwardrynearson says:

    the bombing was staged > the emperor has no clothes > the analysis of his clothes simply obfuscates that which is fundamentally simple > my opinion of course > I believe my lying eyes

  10. Erik says:

    like my page on Facebook, Boston Bombing Truth, to keep up with all the latest developments in the case. Also stay updated on the media project that is in development – https://www.facebook.com/bostonbombingtruth?ref=bookmarks

  11. jane24 says:

    This travesty just confirms what most of us already knew: It is not possible for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be granted a fair trial in the city of Boston. (And probably not anywhere in New England for that matter!) Judge O’Toole’s refusal to acknowledge this makes a mockery of the so-called “justice” system. What a charade!

  12. EyesWideOpen says:

    Interesting how every news summary only reports on the sealed motion & NOT THE EXPARTE MEETING WITH ORTIZ & O’Toole before Thursday’s proceedings:

    That ORTIZ & O’Toole teamed up for the miscarriage of justice in the Mehanna entrapment case is not by mere happenstance.

    In fact, if you check the court’s master docket, O’Toole was “appointed” to the Tsarnaev case in June, 2 months AFTER Tsarnaev’s arraignment in April, 2013…how convenient!

    This entire trial is a FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE!

    Only those who have done deep analysis & forensics of the court docket can truly realize this evil exercise of corruption.

    The ABA JOURNAL, “Private Talks” 2-9-07

    “In criminal cases, prosecutors may be authorized by statute to initiate ex parte contacts with judges for a variety of reasons, but some jurisdictions have determined that it may be necessary that the statute explicitly authorize the ex parte communication. The Ethics Com­mittee of the North Carolina State Bar concluded in Formal Ethics Opinion 15 (2002), for instance, that a prosecutor who contacted a judge ex parte to attempt to reinstate a bond could not rely on a stat­ute that generally allowed prosecutors to apply to judges “at any time” for modification or revocation of orders of release, since the statute did not explicitly permit the type of contact in question.

    Attempts by prosecutors to gain an advantage over defense counsel by privately informing the judge about certain facts are universally condemned from an ethics standpoint.

    OLD RULES, NEW RULES In addition to uncertainties over the authorized-by-law exception to Rule 3.5(b), jurisdictions disagree about whether prohibiting ex parte communications with judges should apply to all communications or only those that go to the merits of a case.

    The divergence in thinking on this issue was re­flected in the ABA Model Code of Professional Respon­sibil­ity, which was superseded by the Model Rules in 1983. Section DR 7-110 of the Model Code, which correlates to Rule 3.5 of the current Model Rules, prohibited only those ex parte communications that went to the “mer­its of the case.” Model Rule 3.5 makes no such distinctions between procedural and substantive communications (providing they are permitted by law). Thus, whether a jurisdiction follows the old or new version of the rule may dictate whether certain ex parte contacts are permitted.

    In addition to being familiar with the nuances of Model Rule 3.5, lawyers should be aware that judges have a corresponding—though not identical—duty regarding ex parte communications under Canon 3B(7) of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, which is widely followed by the states. (The Code of Conduct for United States Judges also contains a general prohibition against ex parte communications with parties or their attorneys.)”

    Also, from Ortiz’s own hand:
    http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/docs/rules/comments-us-attorney.pdf

    • EyesWideOpen says:

      “There is a strong appearance that the fraudulent continuance on the indictment happened so that Judge O’Toole would be the drawn US District Judge when the indictment returned…They put the Magistrate Case Number on the Indictment and Clerk Staff assigned US District Judge O’Toole; then they immediately referred the case right back to Magistrate Judge. Bowler.”

      “To assess for legitimate orders you look at the time entered for the order on the case Activity Docket then go to the date and a time close to the time of the case order you are investigating on THE COURT’S ALL RECENT ORDERS docket. You will find orders entered for other cases that are timed before and after the time of the order for which you are looking but orders that have been fraudulently entered ONLY make it to the case docket and will not be found on THE COURT’S ALL RECENT ORDERS docket. The ORDERED referral back to the Magistrate Judge supposedly by Judge O’Toole did not make it to THE COURT’S ALL RECENT ORDERS docket; it was not entered by a member of US District Judge’s clerk staff. Likely at this point the US District Judge never received or read the indictment and simulated court proceedings continued under the Magistrate…”

      http://m.friendfeed-media.com/a07ff1b9500bb62974a361bad9a58e2a3a71bfce

      More analysis of court file:

      http://friendfeed.com/fraud-upon-the-court

    • daniel wilson says:

      It would take me a while to figure out all the legal details but I’m glad you’re on it! I took a screenshot for my records just in case someone erases your comments. ;)

    • EyesWideOpen says:

      “No one can be forced psychotropic drugs without a court order and that order comes after a competency hearing in OPEN COURT in which the defendant must be present. The judge is suppose to have a colloquy with the defendant and make a decision based on that and any psychiatry evaluation that has to be available to the judge at the time of the hearing. The Judge after a nice chit/chat with the Defendant has the authority to disregard/disagree with any psychological evaluation and order another if he/she finds it way off base; further, the defendant has a RIGHT to an independent evaluation by a psychiatrist of his/her choosing. Did all these sealed orders allow for a secretive closed competency hearing and did the IMPOSTER on the bench write an order to drug this young kid? Doesn’t anyone find it strange that “O’Toole” has never even met or spoken with the Defendant yet keeps denying every motion by the phony Defense Team?

      The only hearing that we know of in which this kid was present was the one before Bowler July 10, 2013. UPDATE: All the concern regarding this young defendant was a wasted effort in ensuring justice. The American people are the VICTIMS. This kid is a proven actor and in on the government’s plan to terrorize and defraid the population.”

      http://friendfeed.com/fraud-upon-the-court

  13. goingnowherefast says:

    The oligarchy owns the whole system including the judicial(?) system. They want Dzhokhar executed and will do everything they can to make that happen. The patsy usually dies after the crime is committed. Can’t have thorny questions emerging in fair trials for heaven’s sake!

  14. daniel wilson says:

    Let’s just start with the ol’ “these are the suspects we are looking for”. I wonder if that gets things off to a fair start when the legal authorities from day 1 are saying they’re only looking at two suspects and that the public should only use their pictures in reference to finding a perpetrator.

    • Antonina Paskaleva says:

      Is there any response to this letter dated Apr 2014, EyesWideOpen?

    • EyesWideOpen says:

      As far as I know, Rose ignored it, not even the courtesy of a receipt. We are in big trouble. The country is on SOMA.

    • MarkTenneyNewMathDoneRight says:

      I’m glad someone recalled that. One of the most corrupt statements in law enforcement history. Probably denial of due process of law.

    • daniel wilson says:

      It’s like that Star Wars scene with the droids.