Having completed our review, the net result is this: We reverse Dzhokhar’s convictions on Counts 13, 15, and 18, with directions to acquit. And we vacate his death sentences on Counts 4, 5, 9, 10, and 14, with directions to hold a new penalty-phase trial consistent with this opinion and with Local Rule 40.1(k)(1) of the District of Massachusetts. But make no mistake: Dzhokhar will spend his remaining days locked up in prison, with the only matter remaining being whether he will die by execution.
First of all, as the court itself makes clear, Tsarnaev will spend the remainder of his days locked up, the decision here notwithstanding. This decision came on his direct appeal and more than enough counts were upheld to keep him in prison for the remainder of his life. The counts subject to orders of acquittal will make no difference.
The case now goes back to the District Court, who must now hold a new death penalty sentencing trial.
That will take some time and until then Tsarnaev will remain locked up at ADX Florence.
It will take some to digest this and come to an opinion on this reversal. It is a huge decision, over 200 pages. Because this is a direct appeal, the focus is as much on the facts of the case as on the law.
The issue is that the pretrial publicity and inflamed emotions in the Boston area precluded Tsarnaev from getting a jury that would impartially examine the aggravating and mitigating factors and thus impartially rule whether he should live or die.
Not a frivolous issue in this case, clearly emotions were extremely high in Boston.
Tsernaev remains eligible for the ultimate penalty. The sentence of his original verdict was struck down, pending review, but there is no guarantee it won’t be imposed post review.
Execution or LWP, he will die incarcerated. The man in the above link was killed in prison.
Knew a guy who worked the E R one of our maximum security prisons sends its most sick and injured. It’s best I not go into detail about inmates brought in on guerneys post sexual assault, and many were violated repeatedly.
Whatever’s left of his life will make death more desirable.
was there evidence the jury was not impartial? or is this just a feeling that they were over emotional? If there’s evidence, fine. If this is all based on the premise that the court feels emotions were too high… I got a problem with courts assuming the jury was prejudiced without evidence.