Federal Court Overturns Death Penalty for Boston Marathon Bomber

Not at ADX Florence.

He is in an individual cell 23 hours a day. The single hour he is out for exercise he is alone in a room. He is never exposed to the general population and never exposed to any other prisoner.

And the cells and the paraphernalia such as his prison uniform and sheets are designed to prevent suicide.

Unless he is eventually executed, pretty much certain his eventual death will be of natural causes.

Considering what I’ve read about ADX, I think I’d be begging them to just put a bullet in my head.

1 Like

How horrible, that sounds like cruel treatment, he needs more freedom, and to be able to interact with his fellow inmates.

The appeals court judges believed that the trial Judge (George O’Toole) failed to conduct a vigorous enough voir dire during jury selection. In particular, the Judge failed to allow defense attorneys to ask questions probing enough to determine hidden biases among the potential jurors. In doing so, he violated the Patrarca legal standard referenced below.

Patriarca v. United States, 402 F.2d 314, 318 (1st Cir. 1968)

Having read the summary of the facts, I must agree with the appeals court here. Judge O’Toole failed to conduct a vigorous enough voir dire. Vacating the death sentences and remanding for re-sentencing is the appropriate remedy.

I would note that the appeals court ruled that Judge O’Toole did NOT abuse his discretion by refusing defense change of venue motions.

So if a retrial occurs it may still happen in Boston.

I’ll have to think about that. It seems predicated on the idea that the absence of evidence is evidence itself.

To me whether life in prison or death is worse is irrelevant.

Why should we pay for him to stay alive for the next 70 years? $0.41 will by a bullet.

It looks like the government will appeal straight to the Supreme Court, foregoing an appeal to the en banc 1st Circuit, which would most likely be declined.

I also see little to no chance of success at the Supreme Court. I think the Supreme Court will simply decline any appeal without comment.

And it looks almost certain that once they get turned down on that appeal, they will go ahead and seek a new sentencing trial for Tsarnaev.

I’m all for Tsarnaev patticipating in a Hunger Games with Dylan Roof and other mass murderers. It would be a lot quicker, and honestly, entertaining. Just no training allowed; straight to the Games. It would serve as a reminder of what people shouldn’t do. Don’t want to be reaped for your own death? Don’t do that to other people! Simple as that.

Throw in some authoritarian senators and Congress people, and it would solve 90% of this country’s problems.

So, depraved Roman empire?

Maybe they could sell tickets to executions now. You could bring the whole family! Maybe sell curly fries before they light off 'ol sparky, eh?

Wait, let me guess, the people choosing the politicians for execution would be conservative, right?

Missed the the import of ‘honestly entertaining’ first go around.

You would be entertained by people murdering each other as a carnal punishment?

DEATH BY RURU!!!

Sorry. :smile:

2 Likes

Returning to topic.

The point of this thread is not whether the death penalty should be legal or should be invoked.

Rather, as long as the death penalty is legal, we must observe the utmost due process in administering it.

Tsarnaev did NOT get the utmost due process. His attorneys were denied the opportunity to more thoroughly question two problematic jurors. The decision vacate his sentence was proper.

2 Likes

People forget that defending horrible people doing horrible things should be about due process.

That was satire.

Sounded like a deployment to me. lol

1 Like

I would say close to zero chance the Supreme Court takes this case.

Almost certainly the Supreme Court will deny the government’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

The Supreme Court almost never reverses or even reviews factual findings by a Court of Appeals in criminal cases.

1 Like

Unless pardoned or commuted or a future court rules differently.